A first on multiple counts

In what is indisputably a landmark judgement, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to investigate General Pervez Musharraf (retd) for alleged corruption while he was president. The IHC has thus redefined the power of NAB to investigate ex-military men, especially retired generals. The verdict came in a petition filed by Lieutenant Colonel Inamur Rahim (retd) in 2014 seeking a probe into Musharraf's alleged corruption. The IHC judgement has cleared the ambiguity in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, based on which NAB had taken the position that it did not have jurisdiction to proceed against retired army officers despite receiving complaints of corruption against them. The petitioner in Musharraf's case had asked NAB to conduct an inquiry into the allegation that the ex-General in his nomination papers had declared assets beyond his known sources of income. Further, quoting Musharraf's book In the Line of Fire, the petitioner stated that the former military ruler admitted to handing over a large number of people to the US in exchange for payment. Also, that Musharraf had injected corruption into the senior hierarchy of the armed forces by allotting them plots over and above their entitlement under the extant rules. NAB in a letter dated April 25, 2013 argued that Musharraf was immune from being proceeded against under the NAO as he was a member of the armed forces. The court, however, found General Pervez Musharraf (retd) fit to be proceeded against because he had held the constitutional post of president and had retired from the armed forces. The IHC found NAB had erred in interpreting the provisions of NAO 1999. Hence it declared NAB's refusal through the April 25, 2013 letter "illegal" and "issued without lawful authority". With this ruling, the IHC has laid down the principle that everyone, including retired military officials, can be tried under the NAO if found prima facie to have been involved in corruption. The court refused to hear Musharraf's counsel since the general had already been declared a proclaimed offender who had run away abroad from the cases against him on dubious medical grounds.
While the IHC verdict relies on a close interpretation of the provisions of the NAO, it marks a first on multiple counts. So far, Musharraf had been indicted in a number of cases with treason, murder, etc., but corruption had not figured in the charge-sheet against him till now. Even after retirement, very few ex-CoASs have been held accountable for their sins of omission or commission in our history. There have been exceptions when a handful of senior armed forces officials faced NAB cases. Notable amongst them are Admiral Mansurul Haq (retd) (a former chief of naval staff), Major General Khalid Zahir Akhtar (retd) and Lieutenant-General Muhammad Afzal Muzaffar (retd). Haq's case ended in a $ 7.5 million plea bargain, while the latter two were found guilty in the National Logistics Cell (NLC) scam. But the weight of the track record in this regard is heavily tilted in favour of top military commanders and their families. It is by now part of urban legend that the families of military dictators and their close coterie emerged from their family heads' stints in power immensely wealthier. None of them was ever put in the dock on this or any other more serious charge such as treason for abrogating the constitution, amongst other possible grounds for prosecution (General Yahya Khan was only declared a usurper years after he had presided over half the country being torn away). It has taken our justice system decades to firmly grasp this nettle in the case of Musharraf. Let us hope this does not prove a flash in the pan and provides the bedrock for holding the high, mighty and powerful to account, irrespective of the uniform they besmirched or the high office they enjoyed.