Pakistan: Why only Musharraf?

Pervez Musharraf has been granted a onetime relief from appearing before the special court hearing the treason case against him because of threats to his life. The court was informed on Tuesday that a five kilogram bomb, arms and ammunition were found outside Musharraf’s farmhouse at Chak Shahzad. The court has directed the federal government to provide adequate security to Musharraf on January 1 to enable him to appear in court. Musharraf has been indicted under Section 2 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973 for imposing the Emergency on November 3, 2007 that subverted the constitution. Musharraf has been dissatisfied over the mechanism adopted by the government to prosecute him whereby a special court has been established to conduct his trial. His legal team has objected to the formation of the special court and the appointment of the special prosecutor, Akram Sheikh, by filing two separate petitions. These the court would take up at the next hearing.

To begin with, the federal government’s decision to try Musharraf for his November 3, 2007 act of holding the constitution in abeyance is itself a questionable attempt. His original crime dates back to 1999 when he overthrew the democratically elected government of Nawaz Sharif and abrogated the constitution. Through a Legal Framework Order he got himself elected president for five years and proposed 19 amendments to the constitution. Later parliament elected in 2002 through the 17th constitutional amendment validated the October 1999 coup. It is behind this shield that the federal government is trying to hide and protect all those politicians, members of the judiciary and other state institutions who assisted Musharraf in orchestrating his rule. Partial justice is being dispensed that ignores the greater crime against the constitution of a military coup.

The plea that Musharraf could not be indicted for his 1999 act because it has been validated by the 2002-2007 parliament is challengeable to say the least. What kind of parliament was it that indemnified a dictator’s act? That phase of the political history of Pakistan is not even considered democratic, let alone its endorsement of a blatantly unconstitutional act be considered kosher. Validating a dictator’s coup by a ‘parliament’ is akin to collaborating in his act. Musharraf should be indicted for every sin that he committed against the constitution of the country and those who had been aiding him throughout the course of his rule should also bear the heat of the consequences. Presently Musharraf’s trial simply smacks of an attempt to single him out and let all his collaborators off the hook.