ISLAMABAD: The Special Court constituted to trial former president Pervez Musharraf under high treason on Thursday announced the detailed verdict in the case.

The three-member Special Court headed by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth and comprising Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim released the 169-page detailed judgement, which included dissenting notes by all the judges.

The judgment authored by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth stated, “The usurpation of the functions of government and other organs of State established by the Constitution (is) tantamount to subversion of the Constitution. Exercise of undue influence over judiciary [such as making them cease office and/or take fresh extra-constitutional oath] do tantamount to subversion of the Constitution.”

“The trial of high treason is the requirement of the Constitution against those individuals who undermine or attempt to undermine the Constitution by any means. This court after presentation of undeniable, irrefutable and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution against the accused reaches to the conclusion that indeed the accused is guilty and deserves exemplary punishment,” it read.

Justice Karim did not support paragraph 68 of the main order. “Indeed, this portion of the judgment and execution of the sentence is nowhere defined but since it is first impression case and the sentence of death is announced in his absence after declaring the convict as proclaimed offender therefore the sentence is supposed to be executed and in case of his death a sentence, to this extent para 65 prescribes the mode of execution.”

The verdict read, “It would be in the interest of justice that all those involved (if any) in facilitation of the escape of the fugitive accused may also be brought in the net of due course of law and their criminal acts (if any) may be investigated and tried in accordance with law.”

The judgment ordered to keep the record inclusive of the case properties under lock and key with the registrar of the court till further orders.

“It is patent by the act and conduct of the accused facing trial, that he has persistently and stubbornly strived ever since the commencement of this trial, to delay, retract and in fact evade it. It has been his plea throughout that either on account of ill health or for security hazards he could not reach up to this Court to face trial,” said the judgement.

“If for a moment it is presumed that military high command including Corps Commanders were not involved then why they failed to defend and protect the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by not restraining a man in uniform […] the then Corps Commanders Committee in addition to all other uniformed officers who were guarding him each and every time, with boots on, are equally and fully involved in the act and deeds of the accused person,” says the judgement.

“The trial of high treason is the requirement of the Constitution against those individuals who undermine or attempt to undermine the Constitution by any means. This court after presentation of undeniable, irrefutable and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution against the accused reaches to the conclusion that indeed the accused is guilty and deserves exemplary punishment.

As a necessary corollary to what has been observed we find the accused guilty as per charge. The convict be hanged by his neck till he dies on each count as per charge,” says the verdict.

“We direct the law enforcement agencies to strive their level best to apprehend the fugitive/convict and to ensure that the punishment is inflicted as per law and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk, Islamabad, Pakistan and be hanged for 03 days.”

“It would be in the interest of justice that all those involved (if any) in facilitation of the escape of the fugitive accused may also be brought in the net of due course of law and their criminal acts (if any) may be investigated and tried in accordance with law.” Justice Nazar Akbar pointed out that the definition of high treason was updated after passage of the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010, which, he said, was not intended to be applied retrospectively. Justice Akbar viewed that Musharraf’s actions of imposing emergency on November 3, 2007, could not be seen as “attracting provisions of Article 6 of the Constitution” on the said date.

“Counsel has failed to appreciate that on the date of offence except ‘abrogate’ and ‘subvert’ no other act of any person was considered as an offence under Article 6 of the Constitution.

Only the act of ‘abrogation’ and ‘subversion’ of Constitution was considered as an act of high treason. The words ‘suspension’ and ‘abeyance’ were not used in the language of Article 6 of the Constitution until 20.4.2010 when [they] were introduced through the 18th Amendment almost after two and a half year to the date of alleged offence of high treason. “In the offence under Article 6 of the Constitution, the charging word is ‘high treason’, therefore, without properly appreciating what does it mean, this court cannot pass a just and fair verdict.”

“But for this reason, both the learned counsel for the prosecution and my learned brothers have referred to the definition of ‘high treason’ by relying on the meaning of ‘high treason’ given in the Oxford Dictionary (Tenth Edition).”