- Difficult to differentiate between prosecution and defense
Former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf had said, back in 2013, that he was ready to face any lawsuits filed against by the then newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom the former had sacked in a military coup in 1999. In 2014 a high treason case was registered against Musharraf for unlawfully suspending the Constitution in 2007 and placing emergency rule. By 2016 he was able to secure an exit from the country on medical grounds, promising to return ‘within weeks’. More than three years have passed since and a verdict in the case had finally been reserved by a special court to be announced tomorrow. Naturally, General Musharraf has challenged the verdict, petitioning both the LHC and IHC to restrict the announcement of the verdict. What is more unfortunate is that the PTI government is also at the forefront in trying to delay the verdict, asking for a new trial under its new prosecution team after suspending the prosecution team hired by the previous PML(N) government. The PTI’s current Law Minister, Farogh Naseem, had defended General Musharraf in several cases, the current Attorney-General, Anwar Mansoor, has been closely tied to the treason case and the current Interior Minister, Brig Ijaz Shah, was a close confidant of General Musharraf, having served in various posts during his tenure. This is a serious conflict of interest that needs to be addressed by the government if it truly is seeking justice in a case as serious as charging a former military dictator with high treason. The timing for this move on the part of the government is especially troubling. After taking office it waited for close to 14 months to raise objections over the finding and filings of the original prosecution team, leading to their de-notification. Only when the special court had moved towards concluding the case and issuing a verdict based on the original prosecution team’s evidence and arguments did the government spring into action.
While the government maintains that there is nothing to see here and all is kosher, a perception is being formed that an attempt is being made to quash the case permanently and that certain quarters are seeking the same result. Not only would such an outcome set a terrible precedent but it would raise yet another question over the effectiveness of the judiciary in high-profile cases.
