Dissenting note on former President Pervaiz Musharraf death penalty makes stunning claims

Shares
Dissenting note on former President Pervaiz Musharraf death penalty makes stunning claims

ISLAMABAD - Dissenting note on former President Pervaiz Musharraf death penalty makes stunning claims.

In his dissenting note in Musharraf high treason case judgment, Justice Nazarullah Akbar states he does not agree with the verdict of the two other judges of the same bench. He added the prosecution team could not prove the case and therefore, the accused is not liable for death sentence.

The bench consisted of Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, Justice Nazarullah Akbar and Justice Karim.

The dissenting note comprised of 42 pages.

Justice Akbar stated, “I have respectfully gone through the proposed judgment authored by my brother Waqas Ahmad Seth […] with my humble comprehension of law and justice, I happened to dissent with majority view of my learned brothers."

The note elaborated the actions taken by Musharraf on November 3, 2007 can be termed illegal and unconstitutional but they cannot be tantamount to treason.

Justice Nazarullah stated that he was not satisfied with the evidence provided by the prosecution and hence, he disagrees with the judgment of the other two judges. In his note, Justice Akbar stated that he acquits Musharraf in the high treason case.

The verdict in high treason case against Musharraf has drawn criticism from both the political and civil groups across the country.

The people took to social media and most of them tweeted against awarding death sentence to the ex-army chief.

The people were of the view that Musharraf is not a traitor and a conspiracy has been hatched against the armed forces and to ignite rifts between the state institutions.

Earlier, the special court announced its short verdict in the said case. The government and the Armed Forces of Pakistan showed resentment over the verdict. The government has been making efforts to create unity and avoid clash among the state institutions.

The high treason case commenced in 2013 and the trial was conducted for six years.

Courts