The life and legacy of General Pervez Musharraf who passed away today, brought multiple twists and turns to the India-Pakistan relationship of a kind, perhaps, never seen before. Watch the video to know more about the former Pakistan President's life.

Obituary to the last military dictator and former president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf

General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan, passed away at a hospital in Dubai on Sunday (February 5) morning at the age of 79 following a prolonged illness. Speaking to the news agency Reuters, Shazia Siraj, spokesperson for Pakistan's consulate in Dubai and embassy in Abu Dhabi, said "I can confirm that he passed away this morning." Pakistan's military expressed condolences on his death.

Pakistan: Former Minister Fawad Chaudhry says, 'Had a very close relationship with Musharraf'

A Pakistani court has ruled that the concept of trial in absentia is against the golden principles of natural justice as it issued a detailed judgement on self-exiled former dictator <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-musharrafs-death-penalty-on-hold-275103">Pervez Musharraf's petition</a> challenging his death sentence on charges of high treason.

A <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/lahore-high-court-reserves-verdict-of-pervez-musharrafs-petition-274002">special court in Islamabad</a> on December 17 last year handed down the death penalty to the 74-year-old retired general, now based in Dubai, after six years of hearing the high-profile treason case against him. His trial was declared as "unconstitutional" by the Lahore High Court (LHC) through a short order on January 13, leading to the annulment of the death sentence against the ex-Pakistan Army chief.

The detailed judgement, authored by LHC Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, found the process for the establishment of the special court in consultation with the then chief justice of Pakistan and chief justices of five high courts alien to the Constitution.

"It is established without any doubt that the very constitution of the special court was squarely illegal/improper and without jurisdiction," ruled the bench on Monday.

It said that the concept of trial in absentia is not only inconsistent with the doctrine of Islamic justice enunciated in the Holy Quran and Sunnah but also against the golden principles of natural justice, according to the report.

The full bench of the LHC observed that the interior secretary was competent to file a complaint against the accused of "high treason" only on the recommendations of the federal government, whereas the federal government was to operate in the spirit of Article 90(1) of the Constitution which includes the prime minister and the Cabinet.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/musharraf-pleas-pakistans-president-for-mercy-276378">Musharraf seeks mercy from Pakistan President Alvi over death penalty</a>

"However, the requisite requirement of the Constitution was totally ignored," the LHC said in the verdict.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had filed the treason case against the former army chief in 2013 over the imposition of an extra-constitutional emergency in November 2007, which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 judges.

In a huge reprieve for Musharraf, the LHC declared that the formation of the special court was "unconstitutional" and that the treason case against the former president was not prepared under the law.

Barrister Salman Safdar, the counsel for Musharraf, had stated that his absence at the hearing of the special court was not intentional and that he was unable to appear before it as he was ill.

On January 18, Pakistan's Supreme Court returned the petition against his conviction and sentencing by a special tribunal with the objection that he is not allowed to appeal without surrendering to the law. Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since March 2016, left Pakistan for medical treatment and has not returned since, citing security and health reasons.

Dr Muhammad Amjad, Musharraf's close aide and the ex-chairperson of his All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) party, has said that the former president was rapidly becoming weaker due to an unknown disease, which is why he was unable to return to Pakistan to face the treason case. 
&nbsp;

A Pakistani court has ruled that the concept of trial in absentia is against the golden principles of natural justice as it issued a detailed judgement on self-exiled former dictator Pervez Musharraf's petition challenging his death sentence on charges of high treason.

A Pakistani court has ruled that the concept of trial in absentia is against the golden principles of natural justice as it issued a detailed judgement on self-exiled former dictator Pervez Musharraf's petition challenging his death sentence on charges of high treason. A special court in Islamabad on December 17 last year handed down the death penalty to the 74-year-old retired general, now based in Dubai, after six years of hearing the high-profile treason case against him. His trial was declared as "unconstitutional" by the Lahore High Court (LHC) through a short order on January 13, leading to the annulment of the death sentence against the ex-Pakistan Army chief. The detailed judgement, authored by LHC Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, found the process for the establishment of the special court in consultation with the then chief justice of Pakistan and chief justices of five high courts alien to the Constitution. "It is established without any doubt that the very constitution of the special court was squarely illegal/improper and without jurisdiction," ruled the bench on Monday. It said that the concept of trial in absentia is not only inconsistent with the doctrine of Islamic justice enunciated in the Holy Quran and Sunnah but also against the golden principles of natural justice, according to the report. The full bench of the LHC observed that the interior secretary was competent to file a complaint against the accused of "high treason" only on the recommendations of the federal government, whereas the federal government was to operate in the spirit of Article 90(1) of the Constitution which includes the prime minister and the Cabinet. Also Read: Musharraf seeks mercy from Pakistan President Alvi over death penalty "However, the requisite requirement of the Constitution was totally ignored," the LHC said in the verdict. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had filed the treason case against the former army chief in 2013 over the imposition of an extra-constitutional emergency in November 2007, which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 judges. In a huge reprieve for Musharraf, the LHC declared that the formation of the special court was "unconstitutional" and that the treason case against the former president was not prepared under the law. Barrister Salman Safdar, the counsel for Musharraf, had stated that his absence at the hearing of the special court was not intentional and that he was unable to appear before it as he was ill. On January 18, Pakistan's Supreme Court returned the petition against his conviction and sentencing by a special tribunal with the objection that he is not allowed to appeal without surrendering to the law. Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since March 2016, left Pakistan for medical treatment and has not returned since, citing security and health reasons. Dr Muhammad Amjad, Musharraf's close aide and the ex-chairperson of his All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) party, has said that the former president was rapidly becoming weaker due to an unknown disease, which is why he was unable to return to Pakistan to face the treason case.

Musharraf conviction: Pakistan court says trial in absentia against golden principles of natural justice

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday posed questions regarding the legality of the treason case filed against former dictator Pervez <a href="https://www.wionews.com/c/musharraf-challenges-special-courts-verdict-in-high-treason-case-270655">Musharraf </a>and the formation of the special court that conducted the trial and&nbsp;handed death sentence&nbsp;to the retired general after finding him guilty.

According to local media reports, a three-member bench, comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir, was hearing a set of petitions filed by Musharraf challenging multiple actions against him, including conviction in high treason, the establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government.

Barrister Ali Zafar, who has been appointed as the court's amicus curea in the case, said that the case against Musharraf seemed to have been filed on the behest of the then prime minister, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/doctors-have-advised-shifting-nawaz-sharif-to-us-for-treatment-pml-n-267225">Nawaz Sharif</a>, as there is record of the matter being on the agenda of any of the cabinet meetings held at the time.

"A case under Article 6 cannot be filed without the cabinet's approval," Barrister Zafar insisted. The court asked if the matter was on the agenda of any cabinet meeting, to which Zafar responded in the negative.

"None of the cabinet meetings were held on the matter," Barrister Zafar said.

"This was history's most important matter; can the cabinet discuss it without it being an agenda item?" the bench asked.

Justice Bhatti pointed out that during a recent case pertaining to the extension and reappointment of the army chief, the strength of the cabinet was discussed.

"But in Pervez Musharraf's case, the cabinet's approval or its role cannot be seen," the judge said. Justice Bhatti was referring to pertaining to the tenure of the army chief heard by the Supreme Court, where the bench had inquired how many members of the federal cabinet had approved Prime Minister Imran Khan's decision to extend the tenure of Army Chief Gen Qamar <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-supreme-court-gives-6-month-extension-to-army-chief-qamar-bajwa-265076">Javed Bajwa</a>.

"On June 21, 2013, the attorney general sent a summary to the prime minister that a case be prepared against Pervez Musharraf under Article 6," Barrister Zafar told the court. "The interior secretary was given the authority to file a complaint on December 29, 2013."

"The case that was prepared was not in accordance with the law, neither was the formation of the special court in accordance with the law," Zafar said and added: "The complaint against Pervez Musharraf was not filed by the lawful authority; the law was violated here as well. According to the law, the cabinet has to nominate the relevant authority which would file the complaint."

Justice Naqvi also inquired how the judges who heard the treason case were appointed.

"On what basis were the judges appointed to the special court?" he asked. "Was there a written communication regarding the appointment of judges to the special court or was everything [decided] over the telephone?"

"The Ministry of Law and Justice wrote a letter to the Supreme Court registrar [asking] for names of judges to form the special court [bench]," the counsel for the federal government told the court.

"When the formation of the court [that heard the case] is wrong and illegal then all its steps and decisions will be considered illegal," Zafar said.

"The federal government constituted the special court but did not decide how the criminal proceedings will be held," Barrister Zafar said. "After the 18th Amendment [in] Article 6, it was imperative to amend the 1973 and 1976 laws pertaining to treason."

Zafar said that though a new offence was added in Article 6, its manner of punishment was not decided.

The charge sheet which was filed does not mention Article 6 at all," Justice Naqvi noted.

"The special court indicted [Musharraf] on the first day the case was heard," Zafar told the court. "The Supreme Court did not define the relation [of the action] with Article 6 but termed it as an unconstitutional step."

Zafar further said that that the trial was conducted in Musharraf's absence.

"If a person is not joining a trial, the court can, at most, declare him a proclaimed offender," Justice Naqvi said and added: "Which law allows punishing a person without hearing them?"

Referring to the special court's verdict, Justice Naqvi said: "Looking at the verdict, everyone who supported [Musharraf] at the time can be accused of abetting."

Barrister Zafar insisted that "no one can commit an Article 6 offence alone", saying that "it would be unconstitutional if proceedings are carried out against selected people."

"Can the special court summon other suspects if the federal government does not name them [in the case]?" asked Justice Jahangir, to which Barrister Zafar responded in the negative.

The court asked the federal government to submit a summary of the formation of the special court and directed the state's lawyer to present arguments on Monday. The hearing was adjourned until Monday.

Musharraf, in his petition, had asked the LHC to set aside the special court’s verdict for being illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, in violation of Articles 10-A, 4, 5, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution. He sought suspension of the verdict till the decision of the petition.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday posed questions regarding the legality of the treason case filed against former dictator Pervez Musharraf and the formation of the special court that conducted the trial and handed death sentence to the retired general after finding him guilty.

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday posed questions regarding the legality of the treason case filed against former dictator Pervez Musharraf and the formation of the special court that conducted the trial and handed death sentence to the retired general after finding him guilty. According to local media reports, a three-member bench, comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir, was hearing a set of petitions filed by Musharraf challenging multiple actions against him, including conviction in high treason, the establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government. Barrister Ali Zafar, who has been appointed as the court's amicus curea in the case, said that the case against Musharraf seemed to have been filed on the behest of the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, as there is record of the matter being on the agenda of any of the cabinet meetings held at the time. "A case under Article 6 cannot be filed without the cabinet's approval," Barrister Zafar insisted. The court asked if the matter was on the agenda of any cabinet meeting, to which Zafar responded in the negative. "None of the cabinet meetings were held on the matter," Barrister Zafar said. "This was history's most important matter; can the cabinet discuss it without it being an agenda item?" the bench asked. Justice Bhatti pointed out that during a recent case pertaining to the extension and reappointment of the army chief, the strength of the cabinet was discussed. "But in Pervez Musharraf's case, the cabinet's approval or its role cannot be seen," the judge said. Justice Bhatti was referring to pertaining to the tenure of the army chief heard by the Supreme Court, where the bench had inquired how many members of the federal cabinet had approved Prime Minister Imran Khan's decision to extend the tenure of Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa. "On June 21, 2013, the attorney general sent a summary to the prime minister that a case be prepared against Pervez Musharraf under Article 6," Barrister Zafar told the court. "The interior secretary was given the authority to file a complaint on December 29, 2013." "The case that was prepared was not in accordance with the law, neither was the formation of the special court in accordance with the law," Zafar said and added: "The complaint against Pervez Musharraf was not filed by the lawful authority; the law was violated here as well. According to the law, the cabinet has to nominate the relevant authority which would file the complaint." Justice Naqvi also inquired how the judges who heard the treason case were appointed. "On what basis were the judges appointed to the special court?" he asked. "Was there a written communication regarding the appointment of judges to the special court or was everything [decided] over the telephone?" "The Ministry of Law and Justice wrote a letter to the Supreme Court registrar [asking] for names of judges to form the special court [bench]," the counsel for the federal government told the court. "When the formation of the court [that heard the case] is wrong and illegal then all its steps and decisions will be considered illegal," Zafar said. "The federal government constituted the special court but did not decide how the criminal proceedings will be held," Barrister Zafar said. "After the 18th Amendment [in] Article 6, it was imperative to amend the 1973 and 1976 laws pertaining to treason." Zafar said that though a new offence was added in Article 6, its manner of punishment was not decided. The charge sheet which was filed does not mention Article 6 at all," Justice Naqvi noted. "The special court indicted [Musharraf] on the first day the case was heard," Zafar told the court. "The Supreme Court did not define the relation [of the action] with Article 6 but termed it as an unconstitutional step." Zafar further said that that the trial was conducted in Musharraf's absence. "If a person is not joining a trial, the court can, at most, declare him a proclaimed offender," Justice Naqvi said and added: "Which law allows punishing a person without hearing them?" Referring to the special court's verdict, Justice Naqvi said: "Looking at the verdict, everyone who supported [Musharraf] at the time can be accused of abetting." Barrister Zafar insisted that "no one can commit an Article 6 offence alone", saying that "it would be unconstitutional if proceedings are carried out against selected people." "Can the special court summon other suspects if the federal government does not name them [in the case]?" asked Justice Jahangir, to which Barrister Zafar responded in the negative. The court asked the federal government to submit a summary of the formation of the special court and directed the state's lawyer to present arguments on Monday. The hearing was adjourned until Monday. Musharraf, in his petition, had asked the LHC to set aside the special court’s verdict for being illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, in violation of Articles 10-A, 4, 5, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution. He sought suspension of the verdict till the decision of the petition.

No record of cabinet's approval over filing of treason case against Musharraf, LHC told

Former Pakistan president Parvez Musharraf releases a video message from a hospital in Dubai, court to resume Musharraf's case hearing

Former Pakistan president Musharraf releases video message from hospital  :WION dispatch

Pervez Musharraf has sought adequate security from the government for his return from the UAE to appear before a special Pakistani court in a high-profile treason case, according to a media report.

The 74-year-old retired general has been living in Dubai since last year when he was allowed to leave Pakistan on the pretext of medical treatment.

The former president was indicted in March, 2014 on treason charges for imposing emergency in the country which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 judges.

Musharraf&#39;s lawyer had moved a petition to the interior ministry, stating that the former president faced security threats.

The ministry accepted his plea and said it was willing to provide adequate security to him, Geo News reported.

The ministry, in its response, has sought the details of Musharraf&#39;s travel itinerary and &quot;his stay here in Pakistan so that necessary foolproof security arrangements can be made for him well in time&quot;, the report said.

Responding to the ministry&#39;s notification, Musharraf&#39;s lawyer expressed reservations over the security arrangements to be provided by the government.

On Friday, the special court hearing the treason case against him ordered the federal government to put special measures in place to bring the ex-military ruler back from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The court had ordered that the interior ministry should take action for the arrest of Musharraf through the Interpol.

The special court had also asked the interior ministry to take action to revoke his National Identity Card and passport.

The bench, formed in 2013, is hearing the case of imposition of extra-constitutional emergency by Musharraf in November 2007.

A conviction for high treason carries the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, is wanted in Pakistan in several criminal cases including in the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, is wanted in Pakistan in several criminal cases

Pervez Musharraf has sought adequate security from the government for his return from the UAE to appear before a special Pakistani court in a high-profile treason case, according to a media report. The 74-year-old retired general has been living in Dubai since last year when he was allowed to leave Pakistan on the pretext of medical treatment. The former president was indicted in March, 2014 on treason charges for imposing emergency in the country which led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 judges. Musharraf's lawyer had moved a petition to the interior ministry, stating that the former president faced security threats. The ministry accepted his plea and said it was willing to provide adequate security to him, Geo News reported. The ministry, in its response, has sought the details of Musharraf's travel itinerary and "his stay here in Pakistan so that necessary foolproof security arrangements can be made for him well in time", the report said. Responding to the ministry's notification, Musharraf's lawyer expressed reservations over the security arrangements to be provided by the government. On Friday, the special court hearing the treason case against him ordered the federal government to put special measures in place to bring the ex-military ruler back from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The court had ordered that the interior ministry should take action for the arrest of Musharraf through the Interpol. The special court had also asked the interior ministry to take action to revoke his National Identity Card and passport. The bench, formed in 2013, is hearing the case of imposition of extra-constitutional emergency by Musharraf in November 2007. A conviction for high treason carries the death penalty or life imprisonment. Musharraf, who ruled Pakistan from 1999 to 2008, is wanted in Pakistan in several criminal cases including in the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Musharraf seeks security from Pakistan government upon return from Dubai