Now that we appear unanimous in condemning para 66 of the main judgment re Musharraf by J W. Seth, time to read and reflect on pertinent points raised by J Nazar Akbar in his dissenting note - by far the most incisive part of the 169 page document - he shows a mirror to many:
Para 11 - he highlights that it was only in 2010 that the 18th Amendment added the words ‘suspension’ and ‘abeyance’ to the definition of High Treason which till then was restricted to acts of ‘abrogation’ or ‘subversion’ 
Para 14 - discusses why the acts of 3rd November 2007 couldn’t constitute ‘abrogation’ or ‘subversion’
Para 16 - questions why the issue of retrospective effect of Article 6 (post 18th Amendment 2010 impact re acts of 2007) has not been dealt with - also criticizes both prosecution and defense teams
Para 19 - highlights that the National Assembly in its 44th Session on 7th November 2007 endorsed the proclamation of emergency
Para 20 - questions and criticizes the parliamentarians, especially the lawyers amongst the parliamentarians
Para 21 - believes that the representatives of the people in the parliament couldn’t have implied retrospective effect
Para 26 - highlights Exhibit P 10/2 and raises some important questions
Para 27 - raises questions to be answered by Shaukat Aziz and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan
Para 28 - refers to his article ‘A Tara Masih Amongst the Lawyers’ (a reference to Naeem Bokhari?!) and how things are different now that he is a Judge
