- Delays mar hearing yet again
The delays in the high treason case against former President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf seem to involve the federal government, as the hearing on Wednesday adjourned the case for a month after none of the panel of six lawyers prepared by the Law Ministry proved ready to represent him. The court was informed by the acting Law Secretary that the lawyers were either unwilling to represent General Musharraf, or needed to study the case. It is perhaps not strange that a Ministry headed by a Senator elected on the ticket of the MQM, a party representing General Musharraf’s ethnicity, and for which he had a soft spot while in power, should work in a way that would facilitate delays in the case. The Law Ministry formed a panel only on June 27, 15 days after the court had ordered the appointment of a defence lawyer, after it had barred the lawyer he represented from appearing for him further. It may be remembered that General Musharraf had been ordered to appear before the court, failing which the case could be decided without recording his statement. Even before General Musharraf went abroad in March 2016 for medical treatment, the country was obliged to observe twists and turns aplenty as he tried to escape appearing before the court.
The finickiness with which this case of high treason is being handled indicates that the General is being given every latitude in his defence, to the extent of causing delays in proceedings. It gives rise to speculation that a civilian politician, facing another charge, perhaps corruption, would face short shrift, and would find himself tried and sentenced post-haste. This reflects the difference between monetary corruption and the sort of moral corruption that allows the overthrow of the entire constitutional order. In the case of the former, there is a righteous rage and an almost unholy haste to overcome the legal safeguards that are intended to guard due process; in the latter, there is a lackadaisical slackness, leading almost imperceptibly to delays rendering the crime nugatory. The court should proceed swiftly to judgement, and render justice in this case. Since the coming into force of the 1973 Constitution, there have been two martial laws. Neither has led to any attention being paid to Article 6, which makes subverting the Constitution a crime. The court can end this.
