Special Court orders fresh probe into Musharraf treason case

ISLAMABAD: The Special Court trying former military dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf for high treason on Friday ordered a fresh inquiry into the matter and sought a report on December 17.
The three-member court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, announced a reserved judgment on the Federation’s complaint, seeking initiating a high treason case against Musharraf for imposing emergency on November 3, 2007.
The court directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to reinvestigate the matter by recording the statements of Musharraf, former Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and former Law Minister Zahid Hamid afresh and submit a report on December 17.
The court ruled that the observation of Islamabad High Court (IHC) with regard to conducting a joint investigation team was not absolute and was made merely in the passing.
The court ruled that for conducting an inquiry or investigation for an offence punishable under the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, the power vests with the FIA under Section 5(1) of the Federal Investigating Agency Act 1974 read with item No.14 of its schedule.
“The observation of the Islamabad High Court with regard to conducting a Joint Investigation Team is not absolute and is made merely inpassing”, the special court observed and ruled that reinvestigation be carried out strictly in accordance with the law.
The court in its order, announced by the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court, directed that in case the investigation was not completed by then the investigation team should submit a progress report in writing divulging the stage of investigation, the persons whose statements had been recorded and to what extent further investigation was required.
The court ruled that expunction of remarks which were made in the order dated November 21, 20 l4 did not mean that the investigation team would presume that there existed no material to connect Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mr. Shaukat Aziz and Mr. Zahid Hamid with the commission of offence.
“It is made clear that on the basis of fresh statements that are to be recorded, the investigation team shall be free to form an independent opinion about them in the investigating report”, the court ruled and clarified that that the job of the investigation team is only to collect evidence and place it before it.
The court ruled that the investigation team, keeping in view the event which is the basis of this complaint, has to record statements of the persons who could be presumed to be associated with the commission of the alleged crime.
The court further ruled that the investigation team for the purpose of investigation shall be fully empowered to examine the record that is already part of the present proceedings.
At the same time, the investigation team shall be free to examine any official record of the federal government or any other document that is made available by the persons whose statements are to be recorded, says the judgment.
The court ruled that in the process whatever documents that in the opinion of the Investigation Team may have any relevance with the main event the same shall also be examined so that the truth can be ascertained.
The court in its order recalled that the learned counsel for the accused submitted that in the judgment of the Islamabad High Court there was a mention of the Investigating officer, investigating agency as well as joint investigation team and therefore this court may constitute a Joint Investigation Team to conduct inquiry for the reason that investigation conducted earlier has been termed by the Islamabad High Court to be defective.
The court stated that Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem while appearing for the accused stated that the Islamabad High Court had given its verdict in Writ Petition No.4906/20 14 (Zahid Hamid Vs. The Federal Government of Pakistan and in connected matters) on 10.11.2015.
The court ruled that it had noted from the judgment of the Islamabad High Court that the federal government had also submitted a written statement on behalf of secretary interior Government of Pakistan contents whereof are as follows:-
The common ground raised by all the three petitioners, who were summoned to face trial, is that their attendance was required as accused without holding any investigation.They were summoned without affording any opportunity of hearing, which is condemned unheard.
The court ruled that in view of the facts the federal government showed willingness to investigate the role of any person as aider or abettor considering providing full opportunity of hearing to those persons by the investigation agency.
The court stated that the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel representing the accused while appearing before the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No.4960/2014 consented that re-investigation takes place.
The court observed that the learned counsel for the accused went on to state that as this was a high profile case it would be in the fitness of things that fair and impartial investigation takes place by a Joint Investigation Team comprising of the Military Intelligence, Intelligence Bureau and the FIA.
Similarly, the court ruled that Muhammad Akram Sheikh, while appearing on behalf of the prosecution stated before it in clear and unequivocal terms that fresh investigation in this case has to take place.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, however, rebutted the stance taken by the defence counsel by submitting that the investigation in the present case can only be conducted by the FIA as envisaged under Section 5(l) Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 read with item No.14 of its Schedule.
“From the contents or the judgment it appears that all the parties gave consent before the Islamabad High Court that the matter be reinvestigated as the investigation that was carried out earlier was not conclusive and hence defective”, the court ruled, adding that it was also stated in the judgment of the Islamabad High Court that all the accused or prosecution witnesses would be examined and their statements would be recorded.The court adjourned the hearing until December 17.