ISLAMABAD - The interior secretary failed to produce the original letter written by the secretary to prime minister to the ministry of interior to initiate the investigation for high treason case.
Secretary Interior Shahid Khan in his examination informed the court, “I am unable to find the original letter of the secretary to the PM written on 26-06-2013 to my predecessor to start inquiry.” He said that the original letter might have been filed in the Supreme Court but he obtained the attested and authenticated copy of the letter from the Prime Minister House. Deputy Secretary to PM Sadia Sarwat had attested the copy of the letter, the interior secretary informed. Shaukat Hayat, Musharraf’s counsel, objected to it, saying the deputy secretary didn’t annex his note with the attestation. Justice Faisal Arab, who presided over the three-judge Special Court, however noted his objection.
Akram Sheikh, who examined the secretary, asked from him what happened next. He replied that his predecessor (Chaudhry Qamar Zaman) after receiving the letter from secretary to PM on 26-06-2013 directed the director general FIA to constitute a team to conduct investigation regarding the high treason charges against Pervez Musharraf.
At this point when Akram Sheikh was talking to interior secretary the court objected to it and asked him not to engage with him. “Don’t converse with the secretary,” Justice Arab asked the counsel. The secretary supplied the original complaint and other documents, which were examined by the bench members.
The secretary further informed that the FIA team after holding the investigation submitted the report on 16-11-2013. He said, “After receiving the report I examined it and consulted with law department and filed the complaint against Pervez Musharraf before the Special Court.” Sheikh also questioned if he found evidence to implicate others. The secretary replied that he filed the complaint against Pervez Musharraf on the basis of the inquiry report. The case was adjourned till 24th June. The defence counsel would cross-examine the secretary interior on the next hearing.
SC larger bench to hear govt’s plea on 23rd
 A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court has been constituted on Wednesday to hear the federation’s appeal against Sindh High Court’s judgement to remove former President Pervez Musharraf’s name from the exit control list (ECL).
The bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk and comprising Justice Anwar Zaheeer Jamali, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan will commence hearing the government’s appeal from June 23, 2014.
The federal government on June 14 challenged the SHC judgement in the Supreme Court and prayed to strike it down. The high court had ordered the federation to remove Musharraf’s name from ECL, but suspended operation of its judgement for 15 days.
The federal government with the appeal had also filed the application for early hearing, which was accepted by the chief justice of Pakistan. The case was fixed before three-member bench that heard the application of early hearing on June 16, but it referred the matter to the chief justice for early hearing of appeal against SHC judgement.
The attorney general office had filed application for early hearing of the appeal. The government stated that the matter is of urgent nature and questions of great public importance with regard to the constitution, independence of judiciary and rule of law; therefore, the apex court should hear it on June 17.The sources told The Nation that the CJP had turned down the federation’s request for hearing of the matter on 17th June. However, the CJP fixed the case before a five-member bench for hearing on 23rd June.
The federation’s point of view was that Pervez Musharraf was accused of high treason under article 6 of the constitution and if he is allowed to go abroad, his trial would eventually end since the extradition treaty executed between Pakistan and UAE does not cover an act of “political crime”. It argued in the petition that the permission granted by the SHC would adversely affect the proceedings in the trial of the respondent.