Questions raised by Musharraf’s exit

Government’s thinking

Musharraf has been allowed by the government to proceed abroad. The guarantee he offers to return would not be more sacrosanct than the constitution which he violated despite having taken the oath to preserve it. The way the case of the man accused of committing treason by violating Article 6 has been dealt with by the government and the apex court, raises questions.

The government was double-minded to try Musharraf under Article 6 despite its highfalutin claims of bringing the former military ruler to justice. It was understood that it didn’t want to annoy the army. Musharraf’s name was put on ECL only in pursuance of an interim order of the Supreme Court on April 8, 2013. The government dithered till November, months after the Supreme Court gave it a go ahead to prosecute Pervez Musharraf on charge of treason. For over two years the case continued till Sindh High Court removed Musharraf’s name from the ECL on grounds of illness. As another court had issued non-bailable warrants for Mushrraf’s arrest for repeated failure to appear when summoned, the government could have refused permission to leave if it so wanted. Didn’t it think the charge was serious enough to stop him from proceeding abroad? The Sind High Court’s decision to remove restriction on Musharraf to travel abroad may be justifiable on humanitarian grounds. But will the courts allow less influential criminals who are being tried under offences punishable with death or life sentence to go abroad on similar grounds?

If a particular category of citizens is to be treated differently by the courts from the rest, then is anyone justified to claim that there is rule of law in the country? The episode proves that Article 6 does not provide sufficient guarantee against the overthrow of the system by the man on the horseback. What the governments need to sustain their rule is the masses’ active and enthusiastic support which they lacked in 1977 and 1999 and few can claim they have it now.