Thread: The critique otherwise responsible lawyers are presenting against Musharraf’s conviction is terribly misleading
They should familiarise themselves with the long, complex history of this case before misleading the public about the law
They should familiarise themselves with the long, complex history of this case before misleading the public about the law
1. Musharraf was tried for imposition of emergency, which isn’t treason
False. Musharraf was charged on many counts, incl. subverting the constitution/holding it in abeyance, which squarely fall under Art 6
Also, SC has said this “emergency” was martial law with another name
False. Musharraf was charged on many counts, incl. subverting the constitution/holding it in abeyance, which squarely fall under Art 6
Also, SC has said this “emergency” was martial law with another name
2. Musharraf was tried for suspending the constitution, which wasnt an offence in 2007. This amounts to retrospective punishment
False. SC has held holding constitution in abeyance is subverting the constitution, and subversion has been a part of Art 6 (high treason) since 1973
False. SC has held holding constitution in abeyance is subverting the constitution, and subversion has been a part of Art 6 (high treason) since 1973
3. Musharraf couldn’t have been tried without including aiders/abettors to the crime
False. SC has categorically said that there is no need to postpone the trial until aiders/abettors are included. If Govt wants, it should launch a fresh investigation against others responsible
False. SC has categorically said that there is no need to postpone the trial until aiders/abettors are included. If Govt wants, it should launch a fresh investigation against others responsible
Additionally, quite telling that those relying (wrongly) on Art. 12’s prohibition of retrospective punishment in Musharraf’s case are ignoring it in the case of aiders/ abettors
Aiders and abettors were included in Art. 6 only in 2010 - after the imposition of emergency in 2007
Aiders and abettors were included in Art. 6 only in 2010 - after the imposition of emergency in 2007
Finally, Musharraf was denied a fair trial as he was tried in his absence
Even under int. standards, trial in absentia is permissible provided certain safeguards are ensured such as giving accused opportunity to participate, which were largely ensured
dawn.com/news/1520172
Even under int. standards, trial in absentia is permissible provided certain safeguards are ensured such as giving accused opportunity to participate, which were largely ensured
dawn.com/news/1520172
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
