The High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 is likely to come into play for Pervez Musharraf's trial on the charge of subversion of the Constitution if the 14-member Supreme Court bench, currently reviewing his Nov 3. 2007 strike, rules that he sabotaged the basic document. There is no bar on the apex court to make even strong observations about Musharraf's action and the judges, who subsequently validated his strike, after its seven-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had declared it unconstitutional and void moments after it was promulgated, leading lawyers said. They believed that as there would certainly be observations about the author and sponsor of the Nov. 3 strike if the very court proceedings and the judges' remarks were any guide, the bench chose to issue a non-mandatory notice to Musharraf to appear before it in person or through a counsel to explain his point of view regarding his action following the principle of the natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. Additionally, these lawyers said, the court would have to respond to the arguments of different counsels, who all were stressing the point of view before it that action should be taken against Musharraf for subverting the Constitution. However, even after apex courts observations, how strong these may be, it will remain in the domain and power of the federal government to go for prosecution of Musharraf or someone else under the high treason act, one prominent lawyer said. It would be a different story if the court directed registration of a high treason case against Musharraf and his collaborators and abettors, he said. “Every day, we hear courts ordering registration of criminal cases against different people when the state or police refuse to do so.” A presidency source said it would not be prudent to comment on the contents and fallout of a court judgment that was yet to be pronounced. “Our position is that we will obey whatever decision the court would take,” he said. Former Senate chairman Barrister Wasim Sajjad told this correspondent that the high treason act had never been invoked and the prescribed sentence never awarded since its introduction. He said this piece of legislation was framed in pursuance of Article 6 of the Constitution. He elaborated that there was a clear difference between treason and high treason. Treason is an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) whereas a separate statute of law exists for high treason after the heinous offence has been provided in the Constitution. If someone works against the state, for example by raising a private army, he commits treason but if he subverts the Constitution, he is guilty of high treason, he said. Article 6 of the Constitution, which has been widely talked about during all the tenures of the successive military dictators and even after their exit, reads, any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason. Any person aiding or abetting these acts shall likewise be guilty of high treason. The high treason act provides death penalty or life imprisonment for those found guilty of high treason.
