ISLAMABAD: The high treason trial of retired General Pervez Musharraf brought a historical moment among twists and turns on Monday such as the former dictator’s appearance, his indictment and clarity on who is responsible for removing his name from the exit control list (ECL).

Despite his maverick defence team’s predictions of Sunday night (that the general might not appear in court), the retired general turned up at the Children’s Library auditorium bright and early, dressed simply in a shalwar-kameez and a black blazer.

Setting a new legal and historical precedent, the court indicted him — the first time that a military general has been charged for subverting the Constitution in Pakistan, which has witnessed three coups by three military dictators as well as the 2007 emergency imposed by Musharraf for which he stood in the dock on Monday.

Indictment means that the charges are read out to the accused, allowing the latter to respond to the charges. After this, the trial can begin. Till now, the Special Court set up to try Musharraf has been hearing the objections and petitions filed by his legal team and the real trial had not begun.

When Justice Tahira Safdar (of the Balochistan High Court) read out the five charges against Musharraf, he pleaded not guilty, as his newly hired lawyer, Barrister Farogh Naseem, stood nearby at the rostrum and listened.

After the charges were read out, Musharraf – with the court’s permission – spoke for half an hour, giving his point of view on the trial.

But while it was the indictment, which has set a legal precedent, it was the court order made public later in the day that caused the greater public excitement.

Ruling on the pleas by Barrister Naseem who asked that Mr Musharraf be allowed to travel abroad (to visit his sick mother and for his own medical treatment), the court pronounced that the decision to remove Musharraf’s name from the ECL lay with the government and not the courts.

The order was made public at five and by the evening, Mr Naseem had submitted an application to the interior ministry, requesting that his client’s name be removed from the ECL.

He told Dawn that the Special Court in its order made it clear that it did not place Mr Musharraf’s name on the ECL. He said that this was why he had now filed an application with the interior ministry for lifting the travel ban so that he could visit his ailing mother in the UAE, adding that the interior ministry had earlier rejected the application.

The charges framed The court charged Musharraf with five offences: accusing him of imposing emergency on Nov 3, 2007; issuing an unlawful “Provisional Constitution Order” (PCO) which empowered him to amend the Constitution; issuing an “Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007” which resulted in the removal of numerous judges of the superior courts; issuing “Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007”: and then issuing on Dec 14, 2007 a second “unconstitutional and unlawful (Second Amendment) Order, 2007”.

Before the charges were read out, Barrister Naseem requested the court to delay the indictment, arguing that he needed time to examine the proceedings’ record. But the court rejected his plea.

He also requested the court to allow Musharraf to proceed abroad to see his 95 years old ailing mother Zarin Musharraf, who was admitted to a hospital in the UAE, adding that Musharraf himself wanted to seek treatment abroad.

“A high treason case cannot stop anybody from travelling abroad,” he added.

It was Mr Naseem’s stand that the Special Court had the powers to allow Musharraf to travel, instead of the government or the Supreme Court.

However, Akram Sheikh, head of the prosecution team, argued that the court had to remain focused on the high treason trial. He pointed out that the accused was not in custody and that his (Musharraf’s) name had been placed on the ECL by the federal government and not the Special Court.

Clearly the bench agreed with Mr Sheikh.

Who controls the ECL?

In its order it clarified that “this court has not passed an order to place the name of the accused on the ECL, therefore, the federal government cannot refuse to review its decision merely because of the pendency of this case”.

This order created ripples across the country, giving rise to rumours and conjecture that Monday’s proceedings had set the stage for Musharraf’s release.

It is noteworthy that till now, government officials, including Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid, have said more than once that the decision to allow Musharraf to travel lay with the courts and not the government.

However, the Special Court’s order on Monday seemed to made it clear that it was the government that will have to make this call – though the order also made it clear that the court did not disagree or oppose the accused’s movement.

The order stated: “Unless an accused is in custody, a criminal court cannot restrict his movement. He can work for gain anywhere and get medical treatment at a medical facility of his choice.”

Earlier on Jan 4, Musharraf’s wife had filed an application before the interior ministry, requesting that her husband’s name be removed from the ECL.

However, the interior ministry cited the treason trial and rejected the application.

In fact, this issue had been addressed by the Sindh High Court on Dec 23, 2013 when it observed that placing Musharraf’s name on the ECL “was the act of the federal government and not in consequent to the direction of this (SHC) court”.

Though Barrister Naseem was seeking eight weeks adjournment, the Special Court put off further proceedings of the high treason case till April 15.