The question whether federal government's decision to seek high treason trial of former president and army chief General Pervez Musharraf (Retd) will open the Pandora's Box is question that will find a profound answer in due course. But, as of today, the stage has been set for his trial for subversion of constitution, detention of judges and his November 3, 2007 emergency. By Thursday, the government is ordered to convey to the Supreme Court how would it proceed for initiation of high treason trial, which means some additional legislation would need to be enacted that was not done in the last five years both by the PPP-led coalition government and the caretaker setup. Asserting that "I am under oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution" Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif set the ball rolling by informing the National Assembly on Monday of his government's decision - a move wildly hailed by the parliamentary leaders of PPP, PTI and PkMAP.
It is indeed a history-making development that a civilian government has decided to prosecute a military dictator unlike the many previous elected houses who willingly condoned subversion of the constitution. What happens at the end, one would not like to predict but given the public sentimentality and burden of evidence Musharraf seems to be 'in the line of fire'.
Not that General Musharraf was ignorant of the consequences of his abrogation of the constitution on October 8, 1999; he was keenly aware of it but a pliant parliament was always at hand to condone his peccadilloes and the 17th Constitutional Amendment was passed, which gave it the legal cover. But his second violation, the imposition of emergency in November 2007 failed to get the cover. In fact, as the time passed and his grip on total state control started slipping the legal endorsement became problematic. So much so that the 18th Constitutional Amendment not only revoked it but also expanded the scope of Article 6 by declaring that "No court shall validate act of high treason". So, as time passed it became increasingly clear that case of high treason against the former military dictator was a given thing and also that when presented for adjudication no court can dispose it of without giving it a fair trial. But the ball is still in the court of the federal government, in that it has to provide necessary procedural regime under which the case would be tried. Paradoxically, while the procedural formalities are yet to be put in place the substantive part of case that Pervez Musharraf committed high treason, is almost settled. Earlier in its July 31 verdict, the apex court declared Musharraf as sole violator of Article 6.
Even now that legal process for the trial of Musharraf and the timeline seems to be rather tight and public perspective on the trial and its consequences quite blurred. For one, when his lawyer Ahmad Raza Qasuri talked of 'opening a Pandora's box' there was speculation about who else can be tried as the persons "aiding and abetting" the act of high treason as defined by Article 6. Will it include all his senior colleagues in the army and the cabinet which he headed at the time of proclaiming Emergency on November 3, 2007? If that be the case then many heads, possibly in scores, should roll. Or, was it his action a one-man job then he is to face the court. In the run up to the trial possibility, Musharraf has been saying that it was not his personal decision alone, many from the army and parliament were on board. But his detractors insist that he passed the order for Emergency as Chief of Army Staff and the chief of army cannot do this, as it is the cabinet that is supposed to propose proclamation of Emergency. Then there is an impression that his trial would annoy the army, and there have been warnings to the effect that 'don't try pushing their ex-army chief to the wall'. How will that pressure work, nothing can be said with certitude except for the fact that political forces have emerged from the May 11 elections with unprecedented support which no institution can afford to challenge. Of course all of it is in the future. But what can be said now is that the trial of Musharraf should be fair, giving him the best opportunity to defend himself. Justice should not only be done but also seen to have been done.
Comments
Comments are closed.