Pervez Musharraf’s claim that he was being singled out in the high treason trial was Wednesday described as premature by the prosecution, which said evidence was only found against the former Pakistani military dictator for imposing an emergency in 2007.
Prosecutor Akram Sheikh submitted his written reply on the petition filed by Musharraf’s lawyer Farogh Nasim seeking widening the scope of the treason trial to the abettors and aides of 70-year-old Musharraf.
He said written evidences have only been found against Musharraf.
Labelling the request by the defence as premature, Sheikh said the issue regarding the co-accused can be raised when witnesses will record their testimonies.
Naseem yesterday requested that the court grant disclosure and supply of copies of inquiries as well as the investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) that shows details of the abettors in the proclamation of emergency.
He had argued that Musharraf was being singled out in the treason trial.
A three-member bench of the special court in Islamabad, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, today heard the case. It said the case will be heard on daily basis from the next hearing and there would no unnecessary delay.
The court adjourned the hearing till April 24.
The court is scheduled to give its decision regarding the appointment of the prosecutor on April 18.
In the case’s last hearing on March 31, Musharraf was indicted for suspending, subverting and abrogating the Constitution, imposing an emergency in the country in November 2007 and detaining judges of the superior courts.
Musharraf’s defence yesterday presented the notification issued for the declaration of the emergency and said the names of the people who were consulted regarding it were included in the order.
Nasim said according to international laws, a single person could not be targeted under any charge and the people who were mentioned to have been consulted over the November 3 notification should also be sent notices and tried in court.
He added that it also included people who had prepared the notification and ensured its implementation but there was no mention of an inquiry against these people in the report.
The lawyer said the FIA’s report had also not been made public yet.