ISLAMABAD: The lawyer of former president retired General Pervez Musharraf thinks the general is inching closer to his acquittal in the Benazir Bhutto murder case as the prosecution is struggling to produce the last witness against him.

While the prosecution’s case against Mr Musharraf was based on four witnesses, in the previous week the prosecution has already dropped one of them -- Ejaz Shah, the former chief of the Intelligence Bureau.

Also read: Material witness in Benazir murder case ‘amends’ his statement

The former president was implicated in the Bhutto murder case in 2010.

The prosecution’s case against him was based on the statements of the four witnesses.

Four to prove a case

These were: former interior secretary Syed Kamal Shah; former director general of the National Crisis Management Cell (NCMC) retired Brig Javed Iqbal Cheema; former IB director general retired Brig Ejaz Shah; and the US lobbyist Mark Siegel.

Of these four, two — Kamal Shah and Mr Cheema — had recorded their statements before the anti-terrorism court in January this year.

However, the statements were recorded in camera and have not been made public.

Both of these former aides to Mr Musharraf had been presented as prosecution witnesses.

Advocate Ilyas Siddiqui, who is representing Mr Musharraf, claims that both Mr Shah and Mr Cheema did not utter a single word against their former boss, Mr Musharraf, in their testimonies.

“They disowned the statements attributed to them by the FIA,” he said, adding: “The prosecution could declare them hostile witnesses but it didn’t.”

A hostile witness is one who is not willing to cooperate with the prosecution and has to be grilled and cross-examined aggressively.

And then three are left

But surprisingly, even before Ejaz Shah was due to record his statement before the ATC his name was dropped as the prosecution said his testimony was no longer required. He was scheduled to record his statement during the second week of July.

Though the prosecution did not provide more details about its ‘change of heart’, the joint investigation report prepared back in April 2011 by the FIA quoted the former IB chief and his remarks could be seen to be damaging to Mr Musharraf.

According to that report, he “corroborated” or confirmed the statement of Mr Cheema.

The report claimed that Mr Cheema had told the JIT that he had held a press conference in which he told the media that Ms Bhutto died because she had hit her head on the lever of the vehicle’s sunroof. He had also told them that the press conference was held under Mr Musharraf’s instructions.

According to the report, the allegation [levelled by Mr Cheema] against Mr Musharraf “has also been corroborated by Brig (retired) Ejaz Shah, former DG, IB, in his statement to the JIT. Needless to emphasise here that the former president ordered this hasty press conference with the motive to influence subsequent police investigation”.

However, now it seems that Brig Shah will not be supporting or strengthening Brig Cheema’s account. And as a result, he has been left out.

What does Cheema have to offer?

However, this is not the only problem the prosecution team may be grappling with. Of the three witnesses left, Mr Cheema too was quoted in the JIT report and what he said was very damaging to Mr Musharraf.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which had been constituted in 2009, further stated: “The JIT also examined Brig (retired) Javed Iqbal Cheema, former director, NCMC, who in his statement before JIT has categorically held former president Pervez Musharraf responsible for his premature press conference on the investigation of the subject case.”

The JIT alleged that a “motivated press conference within 24 hours (after the attack on Ms Bhutto)” was “deliberately ordered just to impede proper investigation in order to screen the mastermind”.

And in its most indicting part, the report also said that the press conference was conducted without consulting the then prime minister and chief minister of Punjab, adding that “it is also evident from this pre-investigation press conference that former president Pervez Musharraf had prior knowledge of the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto by accused Baitullah Mehsud. And he withheld this vital information of a conspiracy.”

However, on Jan 16, 2015, Mr Cheema distanced himself from the JIT report and ‘disowned’ his purported statement in it. He claimed while talking to Dawn after his court’s appearance that he had made no such remarks.

He also said that his statement before the ATC was similar to what he had told the UN’s commission which had investigated the murder.

Before the UN commission, he stated that the decision to hold the above-mentioned press conference had been taken during a meeting with the intelligence chiefs and the interior secretary.

If this is what he has told the ATC, his testimony will not provide any proof against Mr Musharraf.

Siegel’s evidence

The only witness the FIA has to produce before the ATC now is the US lobbyist Siegel.

Interestingly, as per the JIT’s report, Mr Seigel also held former DG, IB, Ejaz Shah, responsible for the attack.

Mr Siegel had accused Mr Musharraf and his top aides, including Brig Shah, of threatening Ms Bhutto.

The JIT report claimed that Mr Siegel alleged in his statement that Ms Bhutto had sent him an email on Oct 26, 2007, in which she expressed her sense of insecurity. She also wrote that if something happened to her, she held Mr Musharraf responsible as well as the individuals mentioned in her letter to Mr Musharraf on Oct 16, 2007.

In that Oct 16 letter, she named Brigadier Shah, retired Lt Gen Hameed Gul and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi.

Mr Siegel also claimed that on Sept 25, 2007, in his presence in Washington, Ms Bhutto received a telephone call which she later described as a very ‘bad call’ from Mr Musharraf.

His statement said the former military ruler had warned Ms Bhutto that “her safety depends on the state of their (Musharraf and Benazir’s) relationship”.

Mr Siegel alleged that Mr Musharraf had also warned Ms Bhutto that her security would only be guaranteed if she returned to Pakistan after the 2008 general elections.

If Mr Siegel sticks to his statement, his testimony will simply provide circumstantial evidence – at best – of Mr Musharraf’s guilt. But apart from that, it is not confirmed that he will testify, or so claims the defence side.

Mr Musharraf’s lawyer said it had been three years since the US lobbyist was summoned but to date he had not appeared in the ATC.

The prosecution informed the ATC a couple of months ago that he was ready to testify through video-link but he is yet to appear before the court despite the fact that the government has made all the arrangements.

Regardless of whether or not Mr Siegel appears, the defence side feels that his testimony will not be sufficient.

No wonder then that Advocate Siddiqui said that Mr Musharraf might move an application for his acquittal in the case as the evidence presented so far was ‘weak’.

FIA’s special prosecutor Mohammad Azhar Chaudhry, on the other hand, said there was ample evidence against Mr Musharraf and the testimony of Mr Siegel would strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Published in Dawn, July 21st, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play