ISLAMABAD
Supreme Court (SC) has adjourned till November 28 hearing of appeal pleas against sentence of former president Pervez Musharraf.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa has remarked about special court decision Lahore High Court (LHC) has given more relief to the petitioner than the request made in the petition despite no request was made by the petitioner for nullifying the establishment of special court.
The petitioner had made no request for nullifying special court. Has LHC powers to administer full justice under article 187. Constitution has given powers to only SC for administering complete justice.
The petition related to decision of special court in respect of former president Pervez Musharrf came up for hearing before a 4-member larger bench of SC presided over by CJP Qazi Faez Isa here Wednesday.
Hamid Khan counsel for applicant Tausif Asif said SC had ordered special court to advance the proceedings. The SC said if Pervez Musharraf does not surrender even then proceedings can be run. SC decision was brought into the notice of LHC. Attorney Nazir Ahmad had filed Pervez Musharraf petition in LHC. Affidavit of Pervez Musharraf was attached with the petition of attorney.
CJP Qazi Faez Isa inquired had Pervez Musharraf given affidavit when he was in Pakistan.
Counsel Hamid Khan said impression comes that Pervez Musharraf had appeared before Oath commissioner in Lahore. In fact Pervez Musharraf was not in the country at the time of giving affidavit.
Justice Amin ud Din remarked as per record Ahmad Khan Joya was oath commissioner.
The counsel Suleman Safdar said Pervez Musharraf had gone abroad on March 18, 2016. The attorney who is being mentioned was Nazir Ahmad and he had passed away.
Justice Athar Minallah inquired had Pervez Musharraf gone abroad with the permission of the court.
The counsel Safdar Mehmood said Sindh High Court had given permission to Pervez Musharraf to go abroad for his medical treatment.
The CJP remarked LHC gave relief after reading the request made in the petition. The petitioner did not make request for abolishing special court. Neither special court was in Punjab nor the accused was resident of Punjab. If decision is against the constitution then it is essential to resort to the respective court. It is strange how the LHC accepted jurisdiction. Special court consisted of three judges of high court.
One judge of special court was from LHC.
