Musharraf used weak elements in judiciary to prolong rule: judge.

Byline: Nasir Iqbal

ISLAMABAD -- Justice Nazar Akbar - a member of the three-judge special court hearing the high treason case against Gen Pervez Musharraf who dissented with the majority judgement - observed in his verdict that the former dictator, with the help of then prime minister Shaukat Aziz and his cabinet, took advantage of the weak and opportunist elements in the judiciary to successfully extend his stay in the political office of president.

In his judgement, Justice Akbar held that the prosecution failed to make out the case of high treason against the accused, Gen Musharraf.

He observed that all the actions of Nov 3, 2007, when a state of emergency was proclaimed in the country, were political in nature and were taken by a civil government headed by the president, who alone was both the civilian as well as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Mr Aziz, as the chief executive of the country, had the support of the other pillars of state, including the parliament, according to the verdict.

Therefore, the assertions of the prosecution and the evidence presented by it could not be considered trustworthy for inflicting capital punishment on the accused, Justice Akbar observed.

Dissenting note says prosecution failed to make out high treason case

The acts of Nov 3, 2007 might be illegal, mala fide and unconstitutional, and even if they entailed any penal liability, the same in view of the quality of inquiry and evidence, could not be considered as an offence of high treason.

'Admittedly the words 'high treason' have not been defined in the Constitution or any other relevant laws,' Justice Akbar said, and compared the meaning of 'high treason' as given under Article 6 with that explained in a commentary on the Constitution by Justice Mohammad Munir.

One could not conclude that the state of emergency imposed on Nov 3, 2007 was subversion or abrogation of the Constitution, the judge said, adding that neither was the Constitution replaced by any framework order nor had even its basic structure been changed.

Read: Full text of special court's verdict in Musharraf treason case

Moreover, the Proclamation of Emergency and the Provisional Constitution Order of 2007 had not adversely affected the political rights in parliament and powers to run the federal and the provincial governments. Therefore, one could safely say that the parliament, by first keeping silent on the matter and then amending Article 6 of the Constitution through the 18th...