ISLAMABAD: A petitioner seeking prosecution of retired General Pervez Musharraf on treason charges requested the Supreme Court on Monday to close the doors of military intervention for all times to come by holding the former dictator guilty of subverting the constitution.

Advocate A. K. Dogar, representing Maulvi Iqbal Haider, argued before a bench comprising Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan hearing a set of petitions seeking initiation of high-treason trial against Mr Musharraf by the federal government.

The counsel referred to the July 31, 2009, verdict which had declared the November 3, 2007, emergency as unconstitutional and said the apex court had held in the judgment that Mr Musharraf had failed to abide by his oath of office to protect and preserve the constitution.

The judgment had also stated that Article 6 of the constitution which dealt with high treason was an inbuilt mechanism provided to safeguard the constitution.

Now what is the meaning of this “inbuilt mechanism”, the counsel asked and then ventured to suggest that it meant declaring a person guilty of abrogating the constitution.

This would also help safeguard the constitution so that there would be no martial law in future, the counsel said, adding that it was the duty of judges and lawyers to see that the happening of Nov 3 (proclamation of emergency) was never repeated.

The Supreme Court, the counsel argued, had always used the theory of successful revolutions in the famous cases like the 1958 Dosso, the 1977 Nusrat Bhutto, 2000 Zafar Ali Shah and 2007 Iqbal Tikka cases thus keeping open the gates for future military adventurism.

It is the duty of the court to close these gates for all times to come. He argued that the gates would be permanently closed if the person responsible for abrogating the constitution was held guilty, instead of extending red carpet treatment to him as if he was VIP and providing him with bullet-proof vehicles.

Such treatment may also encourage young officers in the army tomorrow to aspire to become president, Mr Dogar argued. He said that itwas not a chance that Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah who created Pakistan, the first Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and even national poet Allama Iqbal were all lawyers.

Referring to the arguments by lawyers defending Mr Musharraf that the latter had been condemned unheard in the July 31 verdict, Mr Dogar stressed that the apex court had itself answered it in its judgment by holding that both electronic and print media not only in Pakistan but the world over had highlighted and widely covered the summoning of Mr Musharraf through a notice by the 14-judge bench hearing the Sindh High Court Bar Association that delivered the July 31 verdict.

Mr Musharraf was at liberty to join the court proceedings by appearing before it, Mr Dogar said and reminded that his client had pleaded before the Sindh High Court through a petition later to declare the former dictator guilty of high treason for abrogating the constitution by proclaiming PCO (provisional constitution order), imposing emergency and amending the constitution on Nov 3.

“I will be happy if the Supreme Court in its order writes a line: Let action be taken against Musharraf under the law,” the counsel said, adding that it would be a moment to celebrate.

The counsel then quoted the May 28, 1999, verdict of the Supreme Court in which it had asked for extending fundamental rights to the people of Northern Areas and emphasised that the apex court exercised the jurisdiction to order the federal government to take administrative and legislative measures to ensure fundamental rights to the people of Northern Areas.

He referred to the famous 1989 Sharaf Faridi case regarding the separation of judiciary from the executive and said it was the duty and the function of courts to ensure compliance of the constitution. Mr Dogar may conclude his arguments on Tuesday.