ISLAMABAD: Five days after rejection of his review petition, former president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf approached the Supreme Court again on Tuesday, but this time for questioning the issuance of bailable arrest warrants against him by the special court where he is facing treason charges.
“Today Musharraf has filed two petitions challenging the Jan 31 special court order of issuing bailable warrants of arrest and the Jan 10 order in which the trial court decided to make provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) applicable in the treason case,” Advocate Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, a member of his legal team, told reporters.
The three-judge special court had issued warrants of arrest against Gen Musharraf while invoking provisions of the CrPC.
A separate application seeking a directive from the Supreme Court to stay the trial proceedings by the special court till the apex court’s decision on the two petitions was also filed.
Both the petitions have been moved by invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on enforcement of the fundamental rights under Article 184(3) of the Constitution instead of seeking leave to appeal. The federal government through the interior secretary and the special court through its registrar have been named as respondents in the petitions which will be argued by Sharifuddin Pirzada, Anwar Mansoor and Dr Khalid Ranjha.
The petitioner argued that the absence of Gen Musharraf from the trial court was neither intentional nor deliberate but without deciding the applications moved by the defendants questioning the constitution, jurisdiction and the order of the federal government to appoint the special court, the registrar had announced its order on Jan 31 to issue the warrants.
Since it had not been announced in an open court, neither the petitioner nor any agency was bound to obey the order that was without jurisdiction or authority, the petition contended.
It alleged that the action commenced to serve the arrest warrants by police to Gen Musharraf, currently under treatment at the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi, was without any authority as delivered through an incompetent person.
“Thus the Jan 31 order is unlawful, without force and not capable of being enforced,” it said.
It said the special court had exercised authority which it did not possess and thus had acted contrary to the provisions of Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25 of the Constitution.
The petition recalled that the trial court was seized with applications challenging its constitution and alleged bias of the judges in addition to the appointment of prosecutor Muhammad Akram Sheikh.
The other petition argued that the special court had failed to appreciate the fact that the trial proceedings before it were of sui generis (unique) nature emanating out of the constitution. Therefore they had to be dealt with without applying the general laws.
“The special court is bound by the special law and acting beyond that law is an illegal and unconstitutional act.”