Pak govt seeks removal of "mentally unfit" judge over Musharraf verdict

Following a special court’s verdict that General (retired) Pervez Musharraf’s corpse be hanged at D-Chowk, Islamabad for three days even if he’s found dead before his execution, the Pakistan government on Thursday (December 20) said that they will move the Supreme Judicial Council to remove the “mentally unfit” judge from office.

A three-member special court bench had sentenced Musharraf to death in absentia on Tuesday (December 18) for high treason following a six-year-old case.

In its 167-page judgement written by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, who headed the bench, the special court had said that the “convict be hanged by his neck till he dies on each count as per charge.”

Justice Seth had also written that Musharraf should be hanged even if he dies before his execution. “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,” he wrote.

Also read: Death for Musharraf, Pak judiciary cuts military down to size

Major General Asif Ghafoor said that Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and Prime Minister Imran Khan had a detailed meeting soon after the verdict and decided to appeal to the Council to unseat Justice Seth.

Farogh Naseem, Federal Minister of Law and Justice said the judgment showed that Justice Seth was “mentally unfit” since he had suggested that they hang the dead body of Musharraf even after he dies.

He added that such a punishment was against any law of Pakistan.

“The federal government has decided to go to the Supreme Judicial Council as the government believes that such a person cannot be a judge of any High and Supreme Court. If a judge gives such a judgment then such a judge is mentally unfit and incompetent,” Naseem said.

Also read: Pak ex-Prez Musharraf sentenced to death in high treason case

The Supreme Judicial Council is the only body that has the authority to remove a judge of the High Court and Supreme Court in Pakistan.

The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) too strongly condemned the judgement.

“We disapprove the statement of Director General ISPR, who has criticised the judgment of the special court whereunder the ex-Chief of the Army Staff and former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf had been convicted of violating Article 6 of the Constitution and committing high treason,” the PBC said in a statement.

“We are of the firm opinion that the statement of DG, ISPR is clear cut violation of the legal and constitutional provisions and thus amounts to contempt of the court,” the statement said.

The PBC said if there were some flaws in the verdict, then the law has provided a proper course for challenging it in the higher judicial forum. It said the way the judgement has been criticised clearly gives an impression that all the institutions in Pakistan are “subservient to the Armed Forces, to follow its dictation and there is no respect for any other forum including the judiciary.”

“The legal community in Pakistan is of the view that the attitude adopted by the federal government, its ministers, law officers, and the Attorney-General confirms that the party in power has been installed by the Army and that its institution is on the driving seat,” the statement said.

Also read: In 2015 video, Musharraf admits to training militants to fight in Valley

The detailed judgement had also angered the Pakistan Army, which said that the verdict was against all human, religious and civilizational values. “The apprehensions about the short verdict given on Dec 17 have been proved right by the detailed judgment of today. The decision of today and especially the words used in it are against the humanity, religion, civilization and any other value,” Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

However, the apex body of Pakistani lawyers slammed the Army for criticising the judgement against Pervez Musharraf, terming it a clear cut violation of the legal and constitutional provisions which amounts to contempt of the court.

(With inputs from agencies)