SC hears appeals against LHC order in Pervez Musharraf case

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Wednesday said that the Lahore High Court given the relief, which was not requested in the petition over the special court’s decision in Pervez Musharraf case.

The petitioner didn’t plead for declaring constitution of the special court CJP Faez Isa said in his observation while heading a four-judge SC bench that had taken up a set of appeals against the Jan 13, 2020, Lahore High Court order of declaring unconstitutional the Dec 17, 2019, death sentence awarded to Gen Pervez Musharraf by the Special Court in the high treason case.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah are other members of the apex court bench.

“If the high court was empowered to provide complete justice under Article 187,” CJP posed question. “The constitution has only entrusted the power of complete justice to the supreme court,” he observed.

“The special court was not located in Punjab, nor the accused was a resident,” Justice Isa said. “It is compulsory to go to the concerned court, even the decision has been against the constitution,” he said.

“It is surprising how the LHC accepted jurisdiction,” CJP said. “The special court was comprised of three judges, one of them was a judge of Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court issued writ against different high court judges,” the top judge observed.

“If the government had objected to the court jurisdiction,” Justice Athar Minallah questioned. “The government and all people were on the same page,” Hamid Khan Advocate said.

“Secretary Law had raised objection in his reply,” additional attorney general said.

“Ali Zafar was amicus curiae, if he had also objected,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked. “Or he was also on the same page,” Justice Shah questioned. “It seems Ali Zafar was also on the same page,” Hamid Khan replied.

“Being on same page is a constitutional document or doctrine being referred here,” Justice Athar Minallah asked.

“The parties, if intending, could submit their written contentions,” the court said.

The court adjourned further hearing of the case till Tuesday, November 28.