Daily Times

The proceedings of the Musharraf trial and reasons being attributed to its commencement by politicians of different hues is currently the most reported, debated and commented upon subject in the media, which, through its agenda-setting role, has made it an issue of utmost national importance. Some circles believe that trying Musharraf alone was unfair and smacked of a vendetta — all those who were involved in the consultation process for taking the November 3, 2007 action should be proceeded against under article six of the constitution. This is also the position taken by Musharraf’s defence lawyers.

Another shade of opinion is that action under article six must start from the 1999 coup and all those people who supported and abetted the October 1999 coup, including generals and judges who validated the coup, must be prosecuted in the interests of justice. A very bizarre proposition preferred in regards to the Musharraf trial comes from MQM chief Altaf Hussain who, instead of commenting on the legalities involved, has tried to add an ethnic perspective to the whole affair by saying that Musharraf was being victimsed for being a ‘Mohajir’.

There are also people who oppose the Musharraf trial, fearing that it might open a Pandora’s box, which will be difficult to handle and might lead to some undesirable consequences. Their contention is based on the belief that article six not only envisages proceedings against the person who abrogates or tends to sabotage the constitution but also his abettors, which in the present case might implicate some serving generals including the outgoing Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

To clear the haze and arrive at a more objective view of the whole episode, all the foregoing contentions and opinions do merit an anodyne appraisal. First, those who hold a personal vendetta of the incumbent prime minister as the reason behind the trial need to be reminded that that these proceedings have been initiated in pursuance of the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision in the PCO judges case, which obligated the government to initiate action under article six. The SC, in fact, had asked the government to initiate action in the matter within three days and the prime minister, Mian Nawaz Sharif, speaking on the floor of the National Assembly confirmed the query by the court in this regard. So the contention that the Nawaz government was pursuing the case to settle a personal score is the most preposterous suggestion. In regards to the question why only Musharraf is being tried, it is again in deference to the SC’s decision. The SC, in its judgment, did two things: first of all, it declared those actions unconstitutional and null and void ab initio, and secondly, it singled out the person guilty of sabotaging the constitution. So, after the SC judgment on the subject, there was no other alternative to trying Musharraf alone.

The argument that the action must start from the 1999 coup is also against legal realities. Parliament, through the 17th amendment, extended indemnity to the 1999 coup and the decision of the Supreme Court to legitimise the putsch. In view of this reality, the chapter of action against the perpetrators and abettors of the 1999 coup stands closed forever. The proponents of the foregoing views are not aware of the legal developments in regards to the episodes of October 1999 and November 3, 2007.

Now, coming to what Altaf Hussain has said, it is clearly aimed at playing the ethnic card to exploit the prevailing conditions in Sindh and the developments that have taken place in the wake of his convulsions to divide the province. Another reason could be to show solidarity with their former benefactor and patron, and repaying the debt by creating turmoil, which leads to sabotage of the legal proceedings against him. Who can forget May 12, 2007, the day when Karachi witnessed ‘orchestrated mayhem’, which claimed 46 lives and caused injuries to more than 150 people besides threatening a complete breakdown of law and order in Pakistan’s largest and most volatile city.

The Daily Telegraph reported the event in these words, “Karachi with plumes of black smoke billowing over the city of 12 million people, there were extraordinary scenes as gunmen on motorbikes pumped bullets into crowds while police stood by and watched. Bloodstained corpses lay where they had fallen in the streets and bodies piled up in hospital morgues. As the sense of crisis deepened, the military general resolved to send in Pakistan rangers (paramilitary troops) to restore order, and to place the army on standby. Yesterday’s violence erupted as 15,000 police and security forces deployed in the city stood idly by as armed activists from Karachi’s ruling party, Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), a coalition ally of General Musharraf, blocked Mr Chaudhry’s exit from the airport and took control of the city’s central district. Inside Mr (Justice) Chaudhry’s intended destination, Sindh High Court, hundreds of lawyers, some of them bloodied after being beaten up by MQM supporters, milled about chanting slogans and receiving news on their mobile phones about the trouble engulfing them. Outside, MQM activists with pistols tucked into their jeans, blocked the entrance.”

It is a fact that journalists and even judges of the Sind High Court were roughed up besides there being an attack on Aaj TV. It is believed that the mastermind behind that episode was General Musharraf himself, who had claimed those killings as his success and show of power at a rally organised and supported by PML-Q in Islamabad on the same evening of May 12, 2007. So what Altaf Hussain has said is a politically driven necessity rather than having anything to do with law or ground realities.

As is evident from the foregoing discourse, the trial of Musharraf is being held in pursuance of the SC decision and not motivated by political vendetta as some people believe and the proceedings are strictly in accordance with the constitution and the laws enacted by parliament. Anything to the contrary is a misconception.

What will be the political repercussions of the trial? Will the military come to the rescue of their former boss in a show of solidarity as believed by some circles or is another NRO in the offing to bail out Musharraf? Only time will tell. However, I personally feel that opposing the trial is tantamount to going against the SC’s verdict and the constitution and no individual, entity or institution of the state must try to interfere or disrupt the course of the law.

The writer is a retired diplomat, a freelance columnist and a member of the visiting faculty of the Riphah Institute of Media Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad. He can be reached at ashpak10@gmail.com