ISLAMABAD - Former President Pervez Musharraf Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Sindh High Court judgment contending he had been unfairly treated and punished before being convicted.
Musharraf was disqualified from contesting general elections 2013. The petitioner questioned whether the Returning Officer, Election Tribunal and the High Court were correct in rejecting his nomination papers as a candidate in May 2013 general elections?
He submitted his trial under Article 6 of Constitution is yet to come to an end, therefore, it became apparent he has been very unfairly treated and has actually been punished before being convicted. “On this ground alone the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed,” Musharraf prayed.
The former General filed the petition under Article 185(3) of Constitution making Election Commission of Pakistan through Provincial Election Commissioner Sindh, Election Tribunal for Sindh through its registrar, Returning Officer NA-250 and federation through Secretary Establishment as respondents.
He contended that the RO rejected his papers on the ground that he held the Constitution in abeyance, suspending it on 3.11.2007; detained/removed judges of the superior judiciary; insulted Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the Supreme Court in SHCBA vs State case declared the said act ‘mala fide, ultra vires to the constitution and without jurisdiction.
The RO, therefore, rejected Musharraf’s papers under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution read with section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The petitioner contended that the RO order was unlawful, conjectural and fanciful in light of the evidence that has come on record in the federal government complaint before the Special Court. He said the Special Court had held that Musharraf did not act alone. Zahid Hamid, the then law minister, was equally complicit in the imposition of the emergency in question. However, Zahid Hamid was allowed to contest the general election from NA-114 and now he is MNA.
The SC judgment in SHCBA case cannot be construed as determination of the issue that the petitioner is liable under article 6 of the Constitution. No evidence was led (in that case) nor were any factual controversies dealt with. Without prejudice, the declaration and findings of the Supreme Court on the action of the petitioner vis-a-vis the imposition of the emergency cannot be equated with the requirements of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. It submitted that plainly relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court, all the forums below have gravely erred.
It urged the apex court to lay down guidelines of what is meant by the terms employed in Article 62(1)(f).
The petitioner proposed as an alternative the terms in question used in Article 62(1)(f) should be struck down as being un-implementable, vague, over broad and ambiguous.