ISLAMABAD: Zahid Hamid, the erstwhile federal minister for science and technology, has challenged a special court verdict that ordered the government to include him as one of the abettors in the treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf.

In his petition before the Islamabad High Court, Mr Hamid – who was the law minister in Musharraf’s cabinet when the former military ruler imposed a state of emergency on November 3, 2007 – not only distanced himself from the act itself, but also insisted on a ‘solo trial’ for his former boss.

Read: Zahid Hamid the indispensable?

Mr Hamid had resigned from his cabinet position when the special court ordered he be tried as an abettor, on Nov 21. The order also implicated former prime minister Shaukat Aziz and former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.

A petition filed through his counsel, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, has been placed before the IHC. But the registrar’s office has raised certain objections on the petition, arguing that the high court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. However, the petition has been fixed before Justice Athar Minallah as an ‘objection case’.

Musharraf’s former law minister distances himself from military ruler’s past actions

Justice Minallah will hear arguments by Mr Hamid’s counsel over the objections on Monday, Dec 8. Earlier, Taufiq Asif, the former president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association’s (LHCBA) Rawalpindi chapter, had also moved an application against the special court’s Nov 21 order. Justice Minallah has already sought comments from the attorney general on this petition.

Also read: Special court partially okays trial of Musharraf's abettors

The petition names the interior secretary, Pervez Musharraf and the special court as respondents and claims that the power to nominate the accused rested with the prosecution, and the special court, by nominating more accused in this matter, has exceeded its jurisdiction.

The petitioner has contended that the case was to be tried by the court as contained in the complaint prepared by the Ministry of Interior through an investigation team.

He maintains that the prosecution only named Gen Musharraf as an accused in this case, procured witnesses and submitted documentary evidence before the special court to prove charges of high treason against him.

Under the provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976, it is the prerogative of the federal government to specify not only the precise case to be tried by the special court, but also the names of the accused to be tried.

“The special court however, in effect, appropriated this power to itself and, as such, the November 21 order is repugnant to the provisions of the Special court (Amendment) Act of 1976,” the petition says.

Also read: Federal minister Zahid Hamid tenders resignation

There is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner facilitated any of Gen Musharraf’s acts, or the removal of any judges, the petition maintains, arguing that as per the provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Special Court Act 1976, the military ruler was to be tried strictly on the basis of the facts as stated in the complaint.

The petition contended that the special court having been constituted specifically to try Gen Musharraf on the formal charges as forwarded by the federal government could not traverse the ambit of the charges in question or the statement of the case as set up by federal government in the complaint.

Published in Dawn, December 7th, 2014