On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty that a special court had imposed on former president General Pervez Musharraf.
A few minutes after it was reserved, the top court’s four-member bench—Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Athar Minallah—announced the verdict, upholding the special court’s ruling.
The judgment rendered by the special court established to hear the high treason case under Article 6 was deemed “unconstitutional” by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on January 13, 2020.
The former ruler was sentenced to death on December 17, 2019, by a special court under Article 6 of the Constitution. The case was brought against him for high treason during the tenure of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) because of his “unconstitutional” decision to declare an emergency in November 2007.
The judgment rendered by the special court established to hear the high treason case under Article 6 was deemed “unconstitutional” by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on January 13, 2020.
Subsequently, Taufeeq Asif and the Pakistan Bar Council, among other prominent attorneys, contested the LHC ruling.
Today, the court declared that the former ruler’s appeal against the death sentence he received was unsuccessful due to non-compliance, and it deferred its decision.
Rejecting the former president’s appeal, the SC stated, “Pervez Musharraf’s heirs did not follow the case even on multiple notices.”
Salman Safdar, the attorney for Musharraf, stated that he attempted to get in touch with Musharraf’s family once the court agreed to hear the appeal, but the family never got back to him.
In addition, the court stated that the LHC’s ruling was illegal and deemed the verdict to be “null and void”.
Despite the military ruler’s passing on February 5, 2023, the Supreme court made its decision.
Asif’s attorney, Hamid Khan, informed the court during today’s session that Musharraf has filed a criminal appeal against the sentence.
Aamir Rehman, the Additional Attorney General, stated that he disagreed with Musharraf’s appeal.
Following the hearing of the arguments, the court reserved its decision.
During the previous hearing on November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court noted that everyone who approved of Musharraf’s October 12, 1999 martial law, including the judges, ought to answer for their actions.
Justice Minallah had previously said that trials should be held for the judges who approved Musharraf’s 1999 declaration of martial law.
“We should learn from our history,” the chief justice had said, adding that “at least one should admit that what was done in the past was wrong, even if someone was not punished for abrogating the Constitution.”
The top justice went on to say that acknowledging wrongdoing was crucial and that everyone ought to acknowledge that wrongs have been committed in the past.
Speaking the truth, Justice Minallah had said that the judges who had approved martial law ought to be held accountable and given a fair trial.
Speaking to the media following the verdict’s release, Safdar stated that despite Musharraf’s appeal having been pending in court for four years, it was heard for the fourth time today.
“No criminal case can be prosecuted in the absence of the accused and Musharraf’s case was heard in his absence,” Safdar stated.
The attorney claimed that Musharraf would have pursued the lawsuit if he had been alive today. “His appeal was not heard when he was alive,” he stated.
The attorney insisted, “Pervez Musharraf never committed high treason.”
I am a dedicated student currently in my seventh semester, pursuing a degree in International Relations. Alongside my academic pursuits, I am actively engaged in the professional field as a content writer at the Rangeinn website.