PESHAWAR: The last hope of former president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf for contesting the election vanished on Tuesday when an election tribunal here set aside the acceptance of his nomination papers by a returning officer for a National Assembly constituency in Chitral (NA 32) and declared him disqualified.

In another blow to the former military ruler, election tribunals comprising judges of the Lahore High Court dismissed his appeals against rejection of his nomination papers for NA 139 Kasur and NA 48 Islamabad.

Gen Musharraf’s appeal against the non-acceptance of his papers for NA 250 Karachi has already been rejected by an election tribunal headed by Justice Faisal Arab of the Sindh High Court.

The election tribunal comprising Justice Mian Fasihul Mulk, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Mrs Irshad Qaiser of the Peshawar High Court pronounced the verdict after marathon arguments advanced by scores of lawyers appearing for the appellants and a lone counsel for Gen Musharraf.

Gen Musharraf’s counsel Saad Shibli told reporters that the tribunal’s decision would be challenged in the Supreme Court.

The appeals against the retired general’s candidature were filed by the Jamaat-i-Islami’s candidate for NA 32, Maulana Abdul Akber Chitrali, the Tehreek-i-Insaf’s candidate, Abdul Lateef, and some other people. The lawyers appearing for the objectors challenged the acceptance of the nomination papers on multiple grounds.

They said Shehzada Khalid Pervez had submitted the papers of Gen Musharraf on March 30 whereas the power of attorney was issued in his name by the candidate on April 5. This meant that on the day of filing of the papers Mr Khalid was not authorised to do so, the lawyers contended.

The President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, Rawalpindi bench, Taufeeq Asif, contended that under section 12 (3) of the Representation of People’s Act 1976, the nomination papers could be filed by a nominee only if he was allowed by the candidate in writing.

He cited a number of SC judgments, including one issued in 2009 in which the emergency imposed by Gen Musharraf was held unconstitutional, and argued that he had already been declared a usurper by the apex court.

He said the returning officer in Chitral had overlooked all these judgments and several objections to Gen Musharraf’s candidature while accepting his papers. Mr Asif contended that keeping the constitution in abeyance was tantamount to subversion of the constitution and amounted to high treason.

Advocates Qazi Mohammad Anwer, Malik Ajmal Khan and Fida Gul, counsel for the appellants, said the nomination papers of Gen Musharraf were full of discrepancies. They said his papers for three constituencies had been rejected by the ROs and the decisions upheld by the appellate tribunals. Then how could his papers be accepted from one constituency, they wondered.

The three lawyers recalled that Gen Musharraf had been declared proclaimed offender by three different courts in the murder cases of Nawab Akber Bugti and Benazir Bhutto as well as the Lal Masjid operation and his property was also attached in the cases.

Gen Musharraf’s counsel Saad Shibli faced tough time in answering questions put by the tribunal. He contended that his client had not been convicted in any of the cases and no case of treason was registered against him.

When the tribunal asked how a nominee could file nomination papers without power of attorney, the counsel said the authority could be given even verbally.

But the tribunal observed that the law clearly suggested that there should be a written permission.

In Lahore, the election tribunal comprising Justice Khwaja Imtiaz Ahmad and Justice Khalid Mahmood Khan of the LHC dismissed the appeal of Gen Musharraf against rejection of his nomination papers from NA 139 Kasur.

His counsel Salman Safdar argued that the former president had not been convicted by any court and the allegations levelled against him had not been proven so far. But he failed to come up with a satisfactory answer when asked by the tribunal to justify the action taken by the former president on Nov 3, 2007 – the imposition of emergency.

The counsel for the objector argued that Gen Musharraf had committed constitutional crimes by imposing the emergency, suspending the constitution and detaining judges of the superior judiciary.

In Rawalpindi, the tribunal comprising Justice Rauf Ahmed Sheikh and Justice Mamoon Rashid Sheikh of the LHC’s Rawalpindi bench rejected the appeal of Gen Musharraf against the non-acceptance of his nomination papers by the returning officer for NA 48 Islamabad.

His legal team, headed by Ahmed Raza Kasuri, decided to fight the case against his disqualification in the Supreme Court.

Advocate Malik Qamar Afzal, the counsel for Gen Musharraf, argued that his client could not be disqualified merely on the basis of observations made by the apex court in the PCO judges case. Advocate Nadeem Shah, representing objector Nasir Abbasi, said Gen Musharraf had ridiculed and humiliated the superior judiciary and, therefore, he was subject to disqualification under articles 62 and 63 (g) of the constitution.

Ahmed Raza Kasuri said Gen Musharraf had been deprived of his fundamental right to contest the election. The judiciary was lenient to the objectors and tough on his client, he alleged.

He claimed that Gen Musharraf would launch a movement if justice was not delivered to him. “If the Chief Justice of Pakistan can start a powerful movement after his sacking, the former military ruler can also start a similar campaign to defend his rights,” Mr Kasuri said.

MUSHARRAF ON FACEBOOK: “….the activism shown by the election tribunal(s) in rejecting my nomination papers from all the four constituencies is not going to deter my resolve to help save Pakistan. I will challenge these decisions in the higher courts,” Gen Musharraf commented on his Facebook page after the decisions.

Wajeeh Ahmad in Lahore and Malik Asad in Islamabad contributed to this report