ISLAMABAD - The law has to be equal for the strongest and the weakest person of the society, said Public Prosecutor Akram Sheikh on Monday during the hearing of the Musharraf treason case.
“We have travelled through the ages to this stage that there should be the same law for the strongest and the weakest person of the society,” pleaded lead prosecutor before a three-judge Special Court, established under Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976.
He argued that according to Article 99 (3) of Constitution the Rules of Business are part of the Constitution, adding, under the Rules it was not required that the Cabinet discuss and vote on high treason case.
Justice Faisal Arab questioned whether the Cabinet was not consulted on the issue? Akram Sheikh replied why the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should be involved in the functions, which are not required by them under the rules.
Akram Sheikh said as Anwar Mansoor has argued that the things should be done specially in a manner, as are required to be done. He said if the things are done in a manner, which are not prescribed by the law then it would be mala fide. “If somebody had committed high treason then the Prime Minister could not violate the laws for him.”
He pleaded the investigation and prosecution of a case fall under the Entry 14 of Schedule of Federal Investigative Agency (FIA) Act 1974, which says that the offence of high treason is punished under High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973.
He stated that under the Rules the Interior Secretary is competent authority to file complaint against the accused before the Special Court.
Earlier, Anwar Mansoor completed his argument on setting up of Special Court. In support of his argument he cited many judgments, foreign and Pakistani Supreme Court.
He contended that under Rule 6 of Rules of Business the Cabinet as whole and not only the PM should have decided about the trial of Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution. The Rule 6 should be read with Article 4 of the Constitution, which says everyone enjoy the protection under law, he further pleaded.
He said the accused (Musharraf) has been singled out as he acted on the advice of then Prime Minister and others. He argued the incumbent Prime Minister did not apply his mind but decided to proceed against Musharraf out of compulsion.
He said all citizens to be treated alike in the privileges and obligations. He said when it is written that something has to be done in a particular manner as it is required to be done then it should be done in that manner. But if there is malicious act then everything falls on the ground, adding, if something has been done on the personal vendetta then it is not in the interest of the justice.
He contended that in this case Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry have personal grudge against his client. He said the consultation with the ex-CJP was not required as he was affected by the 3rd November 2007 emergency and PCO.
He said that so many speeches were made by the ex-CJP against Musharraf, therefore, he should not have been consulted. There is apparent bias on the face of the case, added. As Akram Sheikh was arguing the court adjourned the hearing till Tuesday (today).