ISLAMABAD - The Special Court yesterday ordered freezing of bank accounts and confiscation of properties owned by General (r) Pervez Musharraf.

The high treason case against the former army chief was adjourned until he is produced either through arrest or he surrenders. The court rejected the prosecution’s suggestion to hold Musharraf’s trial in absentia or record his statement under Section 342 of CrPC on skype.

The court directed the State Bank of Pakistan to freeze the accounts of the former military dictator. The court also ordered district collectors to confiscate Musharraf’s properties, other than residential, through the respective secretaries of provincial revenue departments. The court further held the residential properties would be attached through the district and sessions judges concerned.

The court said the accused had been declared a proclaimed offender and that perpetual arrest warrants be issued against him. It also directed the FIA director general, the Islamabad district magistrate and the IGP to enter Musharraf’s name in the list of proclaimed offenders.

Interior Joint Secretary Dilshad Ahmed Babar submitted a report on Musharraf’s properties and accounts to the special court chaired by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel.

The report contained statements of the chief secretaries of all the provinces, home departments of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, the Islamabad chief commissioner, Federal Board of Revenue and State Bank of Pakistan.

The FBR report said that as per Musharraf’s wealth statement filed in 2008, he had Plot No 6 in Army Housing Scheme, Part-111, Clifton, Karachi, (worth Rs 11.59 million), Plot No 172 Khyaban-e-Faisal, Phase-8, DHA, Karachi, (worth Rs 1.5 million), Plot No 301, Beach Street No 1, Phase 8, DHA, Karachi, (worth Rs 2.5 million), Plot No 1, Sector-F, DHA Phase-II, Islamabad, (worth Rs 362,500), Plot No CC-1/1, Phase 111, Sector X6X, DHA, Lahore, (worth Rs 1.8 million), Plot No C-1/B, P&V Scheme, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad, (worth Rs 23.75 million), and two pieces of agricultural land (400 kanals) in Bahawalpur, (worth Rs 510,000) one of which he sold in January 2014 and the other was cancelled. The FBR report further said the ex-COAS had also mentioned in the wealth statement that he had Rs 1.03 million cash in hand and Rs 685,000 in the bank.

The State Bank of Pakistan statement says Musharraf and his wife Sehba Musharraf have several accounts in various banks, including Bank Alfalah, Main Branch, Islamabad (USD 6,012), Bank Alfalah, Main Branch, Islamabad, (Rs 34,626.34), Askari Bank Limited, AWT Plaza, Rawalpindi, (Rs 4,396.36), Askari Bank Limited, Blue Area, Islamabad, (Rs 16.031 million), Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited, Rawalpindi, (Rs 624,865 million) Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited, Rawalpindi, (Rs 156,276), Habib Metropolitan Bank, Rawalpindi, (USD 55,558 million) and National Bank of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, (Rs 1.249 million).

Ahmed Raza Kasuri, representing the former army chief, argued that the properties could not be attached unless their ownership was ascertained. He said in most of the properties mentioned in the prosecution list, Musharraf was only a co-sharer. Justice Miankhel said anyone who had any objection to this order regarding the attachment of Musharraf’s properties could approach the court within six months.

At the onset of the proceedings, Chief Prosecutor Akram Sheikh argued that besides attaching the properties, the Special Court should hold day-to-day trial and conclude the case as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa. He said Musharraf went abroad after the pronouncement of the top court judgment. Justice Miankhel told him the complainant of the case (the interior secretary) had allowed Musharraf to leave the country. The chief prosecutor said Musharraf left the country in emergency. The impression was created that if he was not permitted to go abroad, something might happen to him. He said in the last three months not a single disprin was given to Musharraf.

Akram Sheikh said this was not a crime under Anti-Terrorism Act or POPA, but a constitutional offence. He argued the accused had sabotaged the constitution. He pleaded that under Section 9 of Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, if the court deems an accused impedes the course of justice, the court shall hold the trial after taking necessary steps to appoint an advocate to defend the accused.