What distinguishes them apart?
This past decade has witnessed a significant change in the socio-political dynamics of Pakistan. The revival of democracy, restoration of judiciary and the 2013 transition of power were all major contributors to this change. But the return of the ‘Commando’ on 24th March, 2013, brought with it a test of nerves for the soon to be elected Sharifs. Pervez Musharraf vowed to save the country and uphold the trichotomy of power this time through a political struggle, only to be buried under a tirade of legal complications solely in the name of justice. Trial under Article 6 of the constitution was labelled as ‘historic’ by some but do we really acknowledge its historic importance? Is it really intended to provide justice or is it something else, perhaps revenge?
For those people incognizant of Musharraf’s trial, he has been indicted for high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution, read with Section 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973. This presumed preservation of the ‘rule of law’ was celebrated in many quarters, especially those directly affected by the November 2007 emergency. However the most riveting thing to be noted is the convenient blind eye turned by the corridors of power towards the 1999 coup d’état by General Musharraf. Was the Nov 2007 Emergency a prodigious threat to the constitution as compared to the 1999 takeover?
Article 6 concerns with the basic principle of high treason as stated in clause 1. For those of you not belonging to a legal background Article 6 further states: (2) Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.
[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]
“Aiding” or “Abetting”: These two words somehow answer our question as to why the ‘coup’ is not considered as high treason on Musharraf’s part. On May 13, 2000, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan ‘unanimously’ validated Musharraf’s coup on the basis of “doctrine of necessity”. The Apex Court further conferred the power on the then Army Chief to single-handedly amend the Constitution. Clause (2A) moreover complicates the matter. Therefore, integrating the 1999 coup in Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 would indicate questioning the superior judiciary. There, I said it. Enough to indict me under Article 204 (contempt of court). But can a court be in contempt of itself?
Enter the ‘Lord Denning’ of Pakistan, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Best known for his suo-motu actions and the supposed quick disposal of justice, the CJP was seen hell bent to get Musharraf to face the wrath of law. But was it really an advocacy of justice or mere indignation? Facts might suggest the latter.
It took one short order to stagger the entire revival of democracy when the incumbent Prime Minister was sent packing. Nevertheless common sense prevailed on the then in-power Pakistan Peoples Party to avoid the skirmish with the judiciary. Yet the seemingly indomitable CJP dared not question Musharraf’s actions in 1999 but was alternatively insistent and rather expeditious in promulgating the illegality of the November 2007 emergency imposed by the General. This was not done out of love for effectuating justice but maybe because the emergency had primarily targeted Justice Chaudhry himself or maybe because the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the coup will have to be impugned.
As the saying goes ‘every man for himself’, sad is the fate of our beloved country as its executive bodies religiously abide by this policy. The custodians of the sanctity of the sacred Constitution of Pakistan are seen calling it even.
Till today the synopsis of our country remains unchanged. Time has seen the practice being adopted of summoning the chief executive of the country elected by the Majlis-e-Shoora to the Apex Court, special courts being constituted to indict a former Chief of the Army. Yet there is not even the slightest mention of the ex-CJP appearing before a judicial commission headed by the current Chief Justice, in order to answer allegations pertaining to malpractice in the 2013 General Elections.
Somewhere in between this ‘game of thrones’ Jinnah’s Pakistan lays abandoned.
It obligates me to agree with Jalib sahib: “Aisy dastoor ko, subh-e-bainoor ko, main nahi manta, main nahi janta”
