111 510 510 libonline@riphah.edu.pk Contact

Let this Pandora’s box be opened

Since his return to Pakistan on a mission to ‘save’ the country, Musharraf has been uncharacteristically subdued. For good reason. The public response to his homecoming has been one of indifference. There were no cheering crowds to greet him at the airports, but only a small and fast dwindling group from the legions who used to fawn on him when he was in power.

The hope he had entertained of being able to tap into the general frustration of the voters with the established political parties has evaporated.But it seems Musharraf has still not woken up to the fact that he has become largely irrelevant and that his political future is bleak. It is a sign of his disconnect with reality that his ambitions are pegged higher than a simple parliamentary seat.

As he said in a BBC interview, he would decide whether or not to take a seat in parliament after assessing the situation following the elections. He would not want to sit on some unimportant position but would see “if some position emerges where I may play some vital role”.

The fact is that he is a political has-been. What he does, or says, hardly matters to the country. Even if he is allowed to contest the election and wins a seat, doubts hang over whether he would ever be able to sit in parliament.

On top of all that, as he contemplates his uncertain political future from behind the high walls of his luxurious ‘farm house’ in Islamabad, Musharraf now has to worry about facing a trial for high treason, an offence which carries the death penalty. He does not of course have to fear the noose but there is a real possibility that he might have to spend some time in jail and then while away the rest of his years as a pardoned convict, barred from high office and from membership of parliament.

As Musharraf faces the most crucial legal battle of his life, no leading lawyer seems prepared to appear for him in court, not even Sharifuddin Pirzada who crafted his PCOs. Musharraf’s legal defence has therefore fallen to a political maverick who revels in stunts for self-publicity. This lawyer is again basking in the media attention he is receiving in the treason case, while at the same time providing some comic relief to the public with his antics.

Musharraf could have been spared much of this embarrassment if he had chosen to take the advice reportedly given to him by the army and the Saudi monarchy not to tempt fate by coming to Pakistan to try his luck at the polls but instead to remain outside the country in comfortable exile, socialising with his wealthy friends and playing golf.

Musharraf did not accept this advice because of a deluded belief, nurtured by the ring of sycophants who surround him, that he can still play a role in Pakistan’s political future despite the end of his military career and his unceremonious ouster from power five years ago.

The legal case against Musharraf is of course watertight. The facts are a matter of public record. As for the law, the Supreme Court gave an unambiguous ruling in July 2009 that Musharraf’s promulgation of the PCO in November 2007 and measures taken by him under cover of this order were unconstitutional and illegal.

These actions also amount to a subversion of the constitution, which Article 6 declares to be high treason. Nevertheless, he has so far not been held accountable because the High Treason Punishment Act passed under this article lays down the condition that a court may take cognisance of the offence only upon a complaint made by a person authorised by the federal government.

Regrettably, the outgoing PPP-led government refused, out of political expediency, to authorise the trial of Musharraf throughout its five years in office. In fact, Zardari himself gave a commitment to the US ambassador in August 2008 that Musharraf would be given immunity for his unconstitutional actions.

A similar commitment was obtained by Kayani. A diplomatic cable sent that month by the then US ambassador – and leaked by WikiLeaks – reports that in separate meetings with Zardari, the then prime minister Gilani and Kayani, she pressed for quick action on immunity for Musharraf. Zardari and Gilani said flatly that they were committed to providing immunity, but not until after the presidential election scheduled for September.

Zardari noted that he already had firmly committed to the US, Britain and Kayani that indemnity for Musharraf would be forthcoming. Since Zardari lacked the necessary two-thirds majority in parliament, he could not formally grant immunity to Musharraf. But he scrupulously refrained from taking any step to hold the ex-dictator accountable for his unconstitutional actions.

Nevertheless, the PPP-led government assiduously kept up the charade that Musharraf would face legal action if he returned to the country. In January last year, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution introduced by a PPP senator, none other than Raza Rabbani, demanding that Musharraf be arrested upon his arrival in Pakistan and that treason charges be brought against him.

One year later, during the hearing of a petition last February in the Lahore High Court seeking registration of a high treason case against the former dictator, a deputy attorney general told the court that the interior secretary had been designated in 1994 as the authorised officer for lodging such complaints. But no concrete action was taken either on the Senate resolution or by the interior secretary.

Another PPP Senator, Aitzaz Ahsan went even further than Rabbani. In a statement to the media last Wednesday, he sought to shift the blame from the PPP government to the judges, saying that the judiciary should have taken suo motu action to stop Musharraf from leaving the country!

He was echoing a demand made in the Senate in January 2012 by the then interior minister Rehman Malik that the chief justice of the Supreme Court should take suo motu notice of the unconstitutional steps taken by the former dictator in 2007.

While the PPP has adopted a duplicitous line on Musharraf’s trial, the PML-N has been wavering in its stance. After having launched a vociferous campaign during August and September of 2009 for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6, the party fell completely silent after a meeting between Nawaz Sharif and Saudi King Abdullah in Makkah in September 2009. Since then, the PML-N has been very reticent on the issue, even during the current reactivation of the public debate on the trial.

Now that the matter has been brought before the Supreme Court, there is some hope that Musharraf will finally be brought to justice. Knowing that he does not have a valid defence, his lawyer has resorted to political gamesmanship. He warned the court that the trial would implicate many of Musharraf’s former aides, including Kayani, who was then vice chief of army staff, and might cause rumblings within the military.

But these warnings failed to make an impression on the Supreme Court bench hearing the case, which in effect promised that justice would be done even if it meant opening Pandora’s box.

It can also not be ruled out that Musharraf would seek the help of his friends in foreign countries to evade justice. But it is unlikely that those who counselled him not to return to Pakistan would be inclined to interfere with the country’s judicial process.

Holding Musharraf to account is essential if we are to establish the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law and banish the threat of recurrent coups d’états. His trial would surely put the army to a stress test. But if it passes that test, the country and its democratic structure will emerge stronger and the army will have enhanced the respect it has won since Musharraf’s fall as a force for democracy.

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service. Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com

Asif Ezdi, "Let this Pandora’s box be opened," The News. 2013-04-15.
Keywords: