Islamabad, July 31: Holding that then president Pervez Musharraf had acted extra-judicially, illegally and unconstitutionally in imposing an emergency and sacking Supreme Court judges two years ago, Pakistan’s apex court Friday termed as null and void the steps he had taken Nov 3, 2007.
A 14-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, however, stopped short of censuring Musharraf as had been demanded in a petition the court was hearing against the declaration of the emergency.
This was not surprising considering that Friday morning, while concluding the hearing, Chaudhry had said the court would not pass a verdict that would trigger chaos in the country.
He made the remark after Attorney General Lateef Khosa said the verdict should be such that it did not harm the “system”.
On being queried as to what the “system” was, Khosa replied that this included the president, the prime minister, parliament and the provincial assemblies.
In concluding the hearing Friday morning, Chaudhry had announced it would deliver its verdict at 3.30 p.m. after the Friday prayers. However, it took over four hours after that to do so.
The court had summoned Musharraf, who is currently in London on a lecture tour, to appear before it Wednesday in person or through his lawyer but he failed do so.
“Determining responsibility for the steps taken on Nov 3, 2007 is necessary,” Chaudhry observed July before issuing summons.
Chaudhry, who was one of the 80-odd Supreme Court and high court judges sacked, had been reinstated in March after a bruising lawyers’ agitation.
Musharraf had sacked the higher judiciary after it refused to take fresh oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) he promulgated along with the emergency.
The emergency had been declared just as the Supreme Court was to deliver its verdict on the constitutionality of Musharraf’s re-election in October 2007.
It had been contended that the same parliament and provincial assemblies that had elected Musharraf in 2002 had re-elected him in 2007 and this was unconstitutional
—Agencies