Site icon Daily Universal Digital

Supreme Court; Parvez Musharaf hanging case, The decision of the special court is upheld.

In the Musharraf hanging case’s hearing in Islamabad, Supreme Court Judge Athar Minullah upheld the special court’s decision. However, the federal government disagreed, not supporting the nullification of the special court’s decision.

During the case against the punishment decision for former President Pervez Musharraf, the Supreme Court granted an additional week for the lawyer to consult Musharraf’s family on appealing. Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s four-member bench sought assistance from lawyer Hamid Khan regarding the Lahore High Court’s decision against the special court.

Salman Safdar, Musharraf’s lawyer, informed the court that Musharraf wanted his appeal heard but hasn’t received instructions from the family. Justice Athar Manullah emphasized the impact of this decision on future generations and Musharraf’s benefits.

The lawyer requested another week to contact Musharraf’s family for their decision. The court granted the extension. Simultaneously, a hearing took place on the appeal against Lahore High Court’s decision on the special court.

The Additional Attorney General stated that the federal government doesn’t endorse Lahore High Court’s decision. However, when asked if they supported the appeal against it, they refrained from confirming support.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah highlighted the ineffectiveness of Lahore High Court’s proceedings post the special court’s verdict, which Justice Athar Manullah affirmed, emphasizing the special court’s decision’s standing.

Hamid Khan’s arguments regarding the Lahore High Court decision couldn’t conclude in this hearing. Chief Justice questioned how the High Court could oppose the Supreme Court’s decision, citing a judge’s opinion that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Constitution. The Chief Justice raised concerns about the application and appointment processes in Lahore High Court, asking for Hamid Khan’s assistance.

The court adjourned the case’s hearing until Wednesday at 11:30, addressing these intricate legal intricacies.

Exit mobile version