- Not so palatable
As it is, a special court holding former dictator, Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf guilty of high treason and sentencing him to death under Article 6 of the Constitution was a bombshell. Despite some having deep reservations on invoking capital punishment in this day and age, the historical verdict was generally lauded by democratic forces of the country.
However in the detailed judgment one of the members of the bench, Mr Justice Waqar Seth, declaring that General Musharraf is hanged dead or alive and his body is dragged to D-Chowk Islamabad and displayed for three days, was an outrage. This portion of the judgment has been widely condemned by lawyers as well as civil society.
The spokesman of the military, Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor, visibly emotional, termed the verdict’s language and import as being against religion and humanity. The military already had expressed deep reservations about the original verdict.
The role of the Attorney General is highly questionable. He did not show up at the CJP’s farewell reference and instead sent his deputy Aamir Rehman to read his speech that was highly critical of the CJP.
In its view General Musharraf, as former chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff committee and an ex-Army chief, had served the Army well for over 40 years and fought wars for the country. Surely he was not a traitor.
The outrage, albeit understandable, was somewhat misplaced. Nobody, or even the special court, had accused the former dictator of being a foreign agent. The judges did not question his patriotism, but rather sentenced him for subverting the Constitution.
Notwithstanding the affront over the remarks of Mr Justice Waqar Seth, the detailed judgment has far reaching and wide implications. It should be welcomed in the sense that for the first time in the country’s history– where virtually half the time of its existence have been spent under martial laws or quasi-military regimes– an article of the Constitution has been invoked to punish a coupster, albeit in absentia.
Musharraf’s predecessors, General Ayub Khan, General Yayha Khan and General Ziaul Haq literally got away with murder by trampling the Constitution under their boots. The former dictator, suffering from a life-threatening ailment while in self-imposed exile in Dubai, is not expected to return to the country to defend himself.
According to Musharraf, the verdict is part of a deliberate vendetta against him. This is a bit of a stretch as none of the three members of the special court have any personal bone to pick with him.
The ruling of the special court deterring future usurpers is more symbolic in nature. It is quite puzzling why the present military leadership is so upset about it. The present Army Chief, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, not only by his pronouncements but also by his actions, has proved that the institution he heads supports democracy.
In the checkered history of the country rarely have the military and civilian leadership been on the same page. But in the case of the Khan government, the Army is firmly behind the civilian set-up. So much so that opposition leaders, especially PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party) chairperson Bilawal Bhutto, accuse Khan of being ‘a selected prime minister’, clearly implying that the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf) was ushered into power through political engineering in the 2018 elections.
Perhaps the biggest guarantee against a future military takeover is not merely an article of the Constitution, but the strengthening of civilian institutions. Unfortunately meddlesome military leaderships of the past as well as our politicians have miserably failed on this very count.
Take the case of the present government. It has not only been unable to provide good governance but also simply unwilling to develop consensus politics in the country.
Vendetta against the opposition politicians and shrinking of media freedom became its hallmark. It is far too dependent on the Army leadership not only in foreign and security policies, but also in the field of the economy, as well as making key appointments.
How the government has mishandled the matter of the Army Chief’s extension speaks volumes about its inherent incompetence.
Ironically, as a result of the Special Court’s decision, the government is faced with a legal conundrum. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister, on numerous occasions while in the opposition, was extremely critical of Musharraf and strongly in favour of his trial under Article 6 of the Constitution, now the government is forced to oppose the Special Court’s verdict.
Although admittedly Khan himself has been rather circumspect about the sentence, his legal team is opposing it tooth and nail. It is no coincidence that Law Minister Fargoh Nasim and Attorney General Anwer Mansoor are former members of Musharraf’s team. In fact the Law Minister was his lawyer in this very case.
The Law Minister, with prime minister’s special assistant on accountability Shahzad Akbar in tow, announced in a presser that the government has decided to move the SJC (Supreme Judicial Council) against Mr Justice Waqar Seth for having an unsound mind.
It will be a first where a judge is hauled up for his verdict in the SJC. It militates against the very concept of independence of judiciary. More importantly, how does the government expect to prove that the offending judge is mentally challenged?
The Special Court’s denouement against Musharraf is subject to appeal in the apex court. But owing to the fact the military and the government are firmly behind the former strongman, it will create a ludicrously anomalous situation. Who will prosecute Musharraf?
The former COAS is a politician as well. He heads his own party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) that contested the 2013 elections. Musharraf would have run for the National Assembly from Chitral had he not been disqualified.
He should therefore be organizing his own defence team. And the honourable course for the government’s legal team bending backwards to come to his rescue, should be to resign and rejoin his defence team.
Musharraf might have been a brave commando. But how can any democratic government worth its salt condone his conduct as a usurper? Post 9/11, becoming a willing tool of the US in its so-called War on Terror, but at the same time propping up the Taliban was the hallmark of his double-dealing.
He is remembered not very fondly for the Lal Masjid massacre in which 154 persons, including women and children, perished and also for the murder of Nawab Akbar Bugti. Sacking of an independent Judiciary and imposing a counter coup (after his earlier coup in 1999 ousting Nawaz Sharif as prime minister) by declaring emergency-plus are his hallmark.
He contemptuously once said that the Constitution was just a piece of paper that he can tear up whenever he so desired. Even after being ousted, on a visit to the USA while talking to high-ranking Administration officials, he was seen seeking their covert help to usher him back into power ‘to save Pakistan.’
Why is the government so keen to defend and rehabilitate a megalomaniac of his time? Khan correctly stated that he would play a role to thwart a clash of institutions. Then why is his government abetting Bonapartists of the past? Surely this anomaly is not by default but by design.
Before officially addressing a full court reference on his retirement on Friday, the outgoing Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, complained that a vicious campaign had been initiated against the judiciary. Obviously he was referring to the government’s, as well as the military’s, severe criticism after the special court’s verdict against Musharraf.
This was but to be expected. In most of the past the higher judiciary has been pliant to the mechanizations of the ubiquitous establishment. Hence the new normal is not so palatable for the powers that be.
The role of the Attorney General is highly questionable. He did not show up at the CJP’s farewell reference and instead sent his deputy Aamir Rehman to read his speech that was highly critical of the CJP.
It is rather to act as a bridge between the government and the judiciary. But he has queered the pitch even before the new CJP, Mr Justice Gulzar Ahmed, had taken the oath of office.
