Serious assertion or a clever ploy?
The sudden announcement by Ch Nisar to try Musharraf for high treason and nominate a lawyer for prosecuting the former military chief has surprised many. The PML-N had taken the previous government to task for failing to take action against the military ruler despite his having violated the constitution twice. The Sharif government however did little to move in the direction for more than five months despite the prime minister assuring the National Assembly in June that his government will file a written request before the Supreme Court to try the former military ruler. The delay had strengthened the perception that internal and external pressures had led the government to drop the matter. The announcement has come at a time when the government is facing severe criticism for failing to control the sectarian clash in Rawalpindi that led to the death of nine and injuries to over two score. It is also being questioned for its handling of the economy, power and gas shortages, and security. A PPP leader has suggested that the initiation of the case seemed to be a tactic to divert public attention from the ‘current chaos’.
Seeking trial under Article 6 which deals with High Treason is quite tricky. It requires capital punishment not only for the person who abrogates, subverts, suspends or holds in abeyance the constitution in any way but also for those aiding, abetting or collaborating with the offense. During an earlier hearing of the case in Supreme Court, Musharraf had suggested he would ask the apex court to summon people who had aided, abetted or collaborated in his emergency proclamation of Nov 3, 2007. One of Musharraf’s lawyers had maintained the trial will open up a Pandora’s Box, revealing big names and previously undisclosed events.
What remains to be tested is whether the government’s move is a serious assertion of civilian supremacy over the military or a ploy to defuse criticism on its performance. One will have to wait for the trial to begin to determine if the government really means business. Any weak case presented before the SC would be indicative of bad faith. The government has also promised a probe into the allegations regarding distribution of ISI money among chosen politicians before the 1990 general elections. Unless the investigation is seen to be just and transparent, it will give birth to allegations of having been conducted only to exonerate some of those named in the ISI document.
