Given its manifest prevarication in defiance of the Supreme Court's clear order the Nawaz Sharif government's decision to put Pervez Musharraf on trial was no more expected, but as it comes, it tends to occupy the centre-stage of public discourse - for reasons more political than legal. In July 2009, the apex court had issued the ruling that the issuance of the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) on November 3, 2007 "amounts to high treason". The then government of the PPP should have initiated the required proceedings but it looked the other way for whatever reasons (or fears), though, astonishingly, it wants it now when it would be merely a roadside spectator. But for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif it was definitely a different ballgame: not only would he have liked to settle the score with the erstwhile dictator who toppled his government but also for his election vow, that he so assertively repeated in his first address to the nation on taking oath as prime minister. He had said that under the Constitution he was bound 'to ensure that persons guilty of acts under Article 6 are brought to justice'. But nothing happened as a follow-up, the firmly-expressed commitment was soon lost in a plethora of confusing statements, all heading back to square one. The issue whether or not Musharraf committed high treason under the country's basic law or not, it was already decided by the apex court, and the government, and only the government was now supposed to initiate proceedings for a treason trial. But, instead, the buck was passed onto FIA to investigate and report. As to what progress the FIA had made the reports were not very encouraging; some were insisting that the GHQ was not co-operating. Obviously, Sunday evening when the Interior Minister called a press conference, the overwhelming expectation was that he would brief the media on the law and order situation in Rawalpindi city, and not by any stretch of imagination the question of putting Musharraf on trial for treason. And not only that the dictator would be tried, he also promised to implement the Supreme Court's decision in Asghar Khan case after its investigation by the FIA. Why now? There are many who ask this question. Could it be that the government feared that Musharraf would leave the country as soon as he gets cleared of the ECL ban which was to be heard by the court next morning - (but hasn't come through due to the absence of the Attorney General and the hearing is now fixed for sometime later this week). But even more viral was the view that the minister released the Musharraf-trial balloon to deflect the public focus from the crippling law and order situation in the garrison city of Rawalpindi following horrendous sectarian carnage with countrywide ramifications a day before. The question why the government has brought up the Musharraf trial issue to the forefront at this point of time has no clear answer. What is also not known at this point in time the likely fate of the treason trial of country's former president and army chief. Is it a tactic to deflect public focus from the harsh realities of day to day life? This is yet another profound question. Isn't it? But what is important and paramount to the moral strength and political viability of our independent existence as a people and a country is the unquestioned supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. That General Pervez Musharraf (Retd) violated the Constitution and therefore deserves to be punished there is, and should not be, any difference of opinion. How to go about it; that is for the government of the day to decide, and there is no escape from it. If many others, some in uniform, would get sucked into this trial that fear too should not be allowed to impede the walk as we move towards the grand pavilion of equal justice for all. That only hapless, poor get punished in Pakistan and the mighty and powerful remain beyond the so-called long arm of law, the impression must be erased from our national template. The situation does bring to one's mind a famous quote of Roman historian Tacitus: "A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all."
Comments
Comments are closed.