Stop biased and unjust trial of Pervez Musharraf

UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR)

We the petitioners would like to point out to the respected committee, the following facts that pertain to unjust and malicious trial of Gen(R) Pervez Musharraf under article 6 of Pakistani constitution;

1. Unethical Conduct of the Supreme Court

Barely a month after Pervez Musharraf’s arrival in Pakistan, the sitting Chief Justice of Pakistan of that time, Iftikhar Chaudhry, issued a challenge, daring people to step forward and bring forth charges against Pervez Musharraf. Various baseless and frivolous cases were registered against him all over the country. The courts even slapped a lifetime ban on him to take part in general elections. That alone is a extra constitutional decision and is a clear violation of constitution.

The CJ also issued statements prompting and pressurizing successive governments to register a case against Pervez Musharraf. These statements were picked up by some segments of the media and a campaign started to pressurize the sitting government. A fervor was intentionally built that on one hand forced the government to make a move towards registering the case and allowed them to disguise their personal vendetta under the garb of court orders.

However, please bear in mind that according to Pakistani law, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right to request – let alone demand – the Federal Government to bring forth charges against any individual or group. Thus, the Supreme Court has blatantly violated law of the land.

According to the laid out procedure of "The High Treason Act";

"No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this act except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Federal Government in this behalf."

Moreover the constitution says that the judges of the special court need to be nominated by the government. Contrary to this Iftikhar Chaudhry handpicked three judges to hear case. These judges, like Iftikhar Chaudhry, are also known to have a clear and obvious bias against Pervez Musharraf.

Federal Investigation Agency was not even given the chance to complete its investigation. While the FIA was just in the very initial/preliminary stages of investigation and not a single witness has been questioned - the report was hastened and case registered.

2. The Case

The case of treason against Pervez Musharraf follows this logic:

In November 2007, Pervez Musharraf imposed temporary Emergency Rule in Pakistan. As a result, some sections of the Pakistani Constitution were temporarily held in abeyance. This is said to be "treason" against the State because Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan states that holding the Constitution in abeyance is an act of treason.

Please consider that;

a. Article 232 of the Pakistani Constitution permits the President to impose Emergency Rule under certain situations. As long as the President is satisfied that a situation or a state of affairs exists which warrants Emergency rule, the latter can be imposed.

We read in “Article 232 (1)" :

If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.”

Therefore, imposing Emergency Rule is not akin to “treason” as it is permitted by the Pakistani Constitution.

The logic that Pervez Musharraf signed the text of the Proclamation of Emergency Rule as COAS and not as the President seems frivolous considering that he was holding both offices. Pervez Musharraf’s powers and authority as the President did not temporarily vanish when he signed off a document as the Army Chief. His powers and authority as the President remained, irrespective of the specific title he used in a document.

b. In 2007, Article 6 of the Constitution did not state that holding the Constitution in abeyance was an act of “treason.”

This is the 2007 version of the text of Article 6:

“(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

In 2010, however, through the 18th Amendment, the above text was altered and "holds in abeyance" was added with malicious intent to try PM retrospectively.

It is an established legal fact that no one can be tried retrospectively. Thus trying Musharraf for an his actions in 2007 under a law that was practically amended in 2010 to implicate him maliciously is a clear violation of his fundamental human rights.

c - Clause 2 of article 6 says that;

" Any person aiding or abetting 2[or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason."

Considering the term "likewise" used in the clause and knowing that only Pervez Musharraf is being tried also destroys any credibility that the trial could hold. This too is a blatant violation of PM's fundamental human rights and should not be allowed.

Another fact that the trial is covering only the emergency of 2007 and not the military coup of 1999. This is also an attempt to make sure that only PM is selectively targeted. Whereas, the generals, judges, and politicians who were involved with the coup in one form or another are being ignored.

We therefore, request the " UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR)" to kindly take steps that this blatant violation of Pervez Musharraf's fundamental human rights is stopped.