Islamabad-The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday deferred hearing in former president general (retd) Pervez Musharraf petition challenging an order of a special court for establishment of a commission tasked with travelling abroad and recording his statement

A division bench of IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani conducted hearing in this matter and adjourned the proceedings after an associate of Musharraf’s counsel informed the court about his senior’s engagements at Lahore High Court. Previously, the bench had ordered Musharraf’s lawyer Barrister Salman Safdar to present Musharraf’s travel plan, telling when Musharraf will return to the country.

The former president moved the court through his counsel Barrister Salman Safdar and cited the Special Court through its Registrar, Ministry of Interior and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division as respondents.

On October 15, a special court had ordered that Musharraf’s statement in the high treason case against him would be recorded through a commission.  Musharraf challenged the order of the special court saying that the formation of a commission by the special court to record the statement was alien to Pakistan’s criminal procedure and unprecedented. He added that the object and purpose of section 342 Cr.P.C namely for the court to enter into a dialogue with the accused is violated by delegating the process of Section 342 Cr.P.C to a commission.

 “Neither the Cr.P.C nor any provisions under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act 1976 provides for setting up such a commission; as no rationale or reasoning is provided in the impugned order for forming the Commission, the impugned order is not a speaking order as required by section 24A of the General Clauses Act 1897,” said the petition. The former president maintained that the impugned order is unconstitutional as it violates the right of the petitioner to be dealt with in accordance with law as protected by Article 4 of the Constitution, 1973. Therefore, he prayed to the court that the impugned order, as it is not provided for by the Cr.P.C or any other law, may be declared a nullity in the eyes of the law and be set aside. He added that the said order given that it violates the petitioner’s right to be treated in accordance with law as per Article 4 of the Constitution, may be declared unconstitutional.