Et tu, Brute?

• Military being the target, all constraints are erased

Candid Corner

“Great is the issue at stake, greater than it may appear, whether a man is to be good or bad. And how will anyone be profited if, under the influence of money or power, he may neglect justice and virtue?”

                                                                                                                                                                               -Plato

I could never think that a day may come when I would be seen speaking for a military dictator. But, I am not. I am not speaking for General Musharraf, the dictator. I am speaking about the manner in which he, as a citizen of this country, has been dealt with by the judiciary which is reckoned as one of the three pillars of the state and upon whose adjudications is built the edifice of justice. The construction and substance of the high treason case judgement sham and shame the judicial processes and raise serious questions about the conduct of the institution and the judges who represent it.

I am even more disturbed about the fact that this is being projected as a sign of the judiciary having come of age. But, then, all such acts are projected in the same manner. When Caesar was stabbed by his closest aides, they also proclaimed the death of tyranny and the onset of liberty and freedom. But, let’s not forget that this was preceded by the vile act of a murder:

Caesar:            Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar! (Dies)

Cinna:              Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!

Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets.

Cassius:           Some to the common pulpits, and cry out

‘Liberty, freedom and enfranchisement!’

History is full of calumnious acts which have been replicated in the matter of trying General Musharraf for high treason. This would clearly pass for a portentous case of settling some old scores. Let’s just go back to what the former Chief Justice Khosa said a few days before the pronouncement of the judgement. During one of his addresses, he cautioned the Prime Minister that judiciary was not afraid of anyone. He went on to recount that it was the judiciary which had disqualified a former Prime Minister and sent another one to jail. Then, shockingly, he went on to mimic General Musharraf, raising his arms in the latter’s trademark style, saying (without taking his name) that “His judgement is also due in a couple of days”.

Moving into the next realm under a new Chief Justice, it must tread its path more carefully to regain its standing as a non-partisan pillar of the state, committed to dispensing equal and equitable justice to all. This said, I see some testing times ahead

This obviously speaks of a deep-set prejudice that he harboured against the former dictator. The personal interest that he reportedly took in expediting the trial need not be recounted here, but there are a host of other issues that must be discussed:

1. Article 6 under which General Musharraf was tried and awarded capital punishment was reframed as part of the 18^th Amendment. The act of suspending the Constitution was not mentioned in the article as it existed before the Amendment;
2. Application of article 6 retrospectively after it was amended in 2010 required an act of Parliament. The same was not secured;
3. Consequently, General Musharraf was tried on the basis of an article of the Constitution in a form it did not exist when the act (of treason) was committed;
4. There were serious questions raised regarding the mechanism followed to constitute the Special Court. These were never addressed which added to the perception of this being an act of vendetta;
5. The proclamation of emergency was not the act of an individual. It was debated among all close associates and members of the government. But, holding a single individual responsible for what was definitely a collective decision speaks volumes of the personal rancour that the then Prime Minister harboured for General Musharraf;
6. It was broadly perceived that periodic changes were made in the Special Court bench to impact the trial, thus reflecting prejudice against the former dictator, and
7. Proclamation of capital punishment without giving the accused a chance to be heard in person is a violation of the enshrined principles of jurisprudence, thus further accentuating the perception of bias.

Let me recount an incident. Back in 2005 when an effort was initiated to forge reconciliation between the then-ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and General Musharraf, I met the former while he was in exile. During the course of the ensuing discussion, he was categorical in stating his animus both for the dictator and the institution that he represented. I still remember his words when, responding to the prospect of rapprochement with Musharraf, he said that, once he returns to power, he would ensure that the “military does not remain in a position to do this to him again”.

The manner in which the judgement has been authored, particularly Clause 66 which deals with the prospect of General Musharraf dying before the punishment is administered, is abhorrent. It is ordered that, in such an event, his corpse be “dragged to D-Chowk and be hanged for three days”. Besides being incontrovertibly degenerate, this injunction speaks of a dominant animus factor. That’s why the credibility of the whole process has been rendered controversial.

There is palpable evidence that it was never a question of punishing an individual alone. In fact, the whole drama was directed to send a message to the institution of the military. The petition challenging the award of extension to the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) was kept pending for months and was taken up barely three days before the retirement of General Bajwa. The request of the mover to withdraw the petition was rejected on the plea that it was a public interest case. The consequent instructions to Parliament to legislate in a certain manner within a specified time frame belie a conscious incursion into the executive domain.

However, what makes it even more ominous is that the judgement in the high treason case was pronounced barely two days after sending a strong message to the incumbent COAS regarding extension in his service tenure. It cannot be a mere coincidence. More likely, this comes across as a properly rehearsed and orchestrated act on the part of some stalwarts of the judiciary.

People are reading a lot into the symbolism of the pronouncement to act as deterrence against proclamations of martial laws in the future. This is myopic. In fact, a clash among two powerful institutions would precipitate this crisis.

In the ultimate analysis, the pronouncements in the matter of the incumbent COAS and General Musharraf stand out as testaments of absurdity. The judiciary trying to stamp its ascendance simultaneously over the Prime Minister and the military is an act reflecting an abysmal paucity of good sense, logic and rationale.

With institutions pandering to their egos and protecting their not-so-blue-blooded scions, it is the state which is rendered an orphan. Seeds which are being sown now will sprout forth into a spread that would be repugnant to judiciary’s honour and inimical to its prestige. As a sequel of these last few days, judiciary has downgraded itself in stature and relevance as a key institution of the state.

Moving into the next realm under a new Chief Justice, it must tread its path more carefully to regain its standing as a non-partisan pillar of the state, committed to dispensing equal and equitable justice to all. This said, I see some testing times ahead.