ISLAMABAD, May 20: One of the petitioners seeking prosecution of retired Gen Pervez Musharraf on treason charges tried to convince the Supreme Court on Monday that only punishment was required to be determined in the case because the former military ruler already stood convicted of proclaiming the Nov 3, 2007, emergency.

“Through impeccable documentary evidence, Musharraf has been found guilty,” Advocate A.K. Dogar argued before a three-judge bench hearing petitions seeking initiation of a high treason trial against Mr Musharraf by the government.

The bench headed by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja postponed further proceedings for May 23 after hearing the counsel.

“There is no need to hold a trial against Musharraf for committing treason rather what has been left for the court to decide after the July 31, 2009, verdict holding the emergency unconstitutional is the quantum of the punishment,” Advocate Dogar said.

He said Article 6(3) of the constitution asked parliament for punishment of an individual facing charges of treason. “There is a constitutional directive.”

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said Article 6(3) undoubtedly was a command but the mandate of the constitution stood complied with once parliament enacted the High Treason (punishment) Act of 1973.

He said the interpretation about punishment would be outside the mentioned clause which did not ask for anyone guilty of treason to be punished.

The mandate the counsel was trying to derive out of the Article 6(3) was not liable to be granted, he said.

Justice Khilji Arif Hussain asked the counsel about Article 45 which empowers the president to pardon any offender even if convicted by courts and asked whether this authority would be available in terms of Article 6. The counsel said the president had no authority to change the command of the constitution.

He said the judgment by 14 judges of the court had already held Musharraf guilty of treason. Referring to the 1997 Al Jihad Trust case he said it had been held that a verdict of the Supreme Court became a part of the constitution.

Responding to an argument that Gen Musharraf had never received the court’s summons during the hearing of petitions against the proclamation of emergency, Mr Dogar said he had been proven guilty of high treason for the emergency on account of no contest.

He said notice had been issued to Musharraf and he chose not to appear in the court.

He cited the 1972 Asma Jillani case verdict in which former chief justice Yaqoob Ali Khan had held that a person who destroyed the national legal order in an illegal manner could not be held to be a legal source of legislation and should be tried for high treason and suitably punished.

The author judge had also held that lack of prompt action would deter future adventurism.

Justice Yaqoob had also mentioned in the judgment, Mr Dogar said, that despite losing half of the country in the shape of Bangladesh after the 1971 debacle, Gen Yayha Khan introduced an interim constitution on Dec 20, 1971, in which he arrogated to himself the power to rule for another five years, having an authority to impose martial law whenever he wished to, that would be revocable only by him. “This is the historical evidence of not giving the reign of power to the people of Pakistan,” the counsel said.