KARACHI: The federal government on Thursday informed the Sindh High Court that it could not take the risk of allowing former president retired General Pervez Musharraf to leave the country because there was a great incentive for him to flee in view of a treason case that involved the death penalty.

The counsel for Gen Musharraf, however, contended that the case against the former president did not involve charges of treason, but of abrogating the country’s constitution, and he should be allowed to travel abroad as the requisite treatment for his backbone injury was not possible in the country.

A division bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Shahnawaz Tariq reserved its judgement on Gen Musharraf’s plea to have his name withdrawn from the exit control list after hearing final arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan Salman Aslam Butt and the applicant’s counsel Advocate Dr Farogh Naseem.

At the outset of the hearing, the AGP referred to certain orders of the special court trying Gen Musharraf on treason charges and said that the accused had been deliberately avoiding his appearance in court without plausible reasons.

Besides, he said that the former military ruler did not have any faith in the legal system and courts.

The AGP said that Gen Musharraf’s trial in the treason case was in an advanced stage as the evidence against him was being recorded in the special court.

He said that treason was a serious offence involving capital punishment and the government was not willing to take the risk of having Gen Musharraf’s name withdrawn from the ECL as “inducement to flee” was great for him.

The AGP referred to the Hussain Haqqani case and said that the former diplomat was given permission to leave the country and he never returned.

He submitted that the treason case against Gen Musharraf was political in nature and because of that, under the extradition treaties with various countries, including the UAE, it was not possible to seek extradition in case of a political crime.

Mr Butt said that his government would be held irresponsible if it allowed the former military ruler to leave the country in these circumstances.

The attorney general was of the view that the Sindh High Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction, and that it was in the public interest not to permit the petitioner to go abroad.

In response, Dr Farogh Naseem submitted that since the AGP had admitted that the treason case against Gen Musharraf was of political nature, then on that count alone not only the orders of placing him on the ECL, but also the treason trial should be quashed.

He referred to a 1999 judgement of the Supreme Court pertaining to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in which the argument that Pakistan had no extradition treaty with the UK was rejected.

Advocate Naseem said that the former president was being victimised and his trial was being pursued for political reasons and not to ensure the administration of justice.

He further relied upon case law on the point that the apprehension that the petitioner would leave Pakistan was not germane to the legality of an ECL order.

Upon hearing the rival arguments, the judgement was reserved to a date to be later announced by the court’s office and the parties were permitted to submit written synopsis by May 31, 2014.

SMIU VC case

A division bench issued notices to the chief secretary, provincial law secretary and other respondents to file their respective comments in a petition challenging the appointment of Muhammad Ali Sheikh as vice-chancellor of the Sindh Madressatul Islam University.

Petitioner Prof Iftikhar Azami, represented by Barrister Zamir Ghumro, also impleaded the SMIU and its VC as respondents.

His counsel said that no advertisement was given in newspapers regarding the appointment of the VC that was a mandatory requirement of law.

Besides, he said that Mr Sheikh was not a qualified person for the post as reportedly his degrees of Master’s in journalism and Doctor of Philosophy were not genuine and needed to be verified from institutions concerned.

Advocate Ghumro contended that Mr Sheikh was appointed as VC under a proviso to Section 13 of the Sindh Madressatul Islam University Act that “Principal of Sindh Madresah College shall be the first Vice Chancellor of the University”.

He said that the respondent VC was employee of the Mehran Engineering and Technology University, Jamshoro and he was illegally absorbed in the ministry of education in 1994, while the Supreme Court had declared all absorptions from 1994 illegal.

The bench observed that the matter required consideration and issued notice to the respondents and the provincial chief law officer for July 2.

Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2014