Legal experts say that even the imposition of emergency in November 2007 is a collective responsibility for which it will be difficult for the government to single out former president Pervez Musharraf alone.
Legal and political circles said that testimony of collective responsibility was evident from Musharraf’s speech in which he made it clear that before going for extreme constitutional measures he consulted a cross section of society and after that he imposed emergency. He told the nation in his televised speech that he had also consulted overseas Pakistanis.
These quarters say that contents of his speech indicated that he consulted all stakeholders, including military and political leadership.
It is interesting that some TV channels are showing the footage in which Musharraf admitted that he imposed emergency after a broad consultation.
It is believed that as such it will be difficult for the government to proceed against Musharraf, exclusively while steering clear of his abettors.
Talking to Pakistan Today, Pakistan People’s Party Secretary General Sardar Latif Khosa said that accountability should be across the board, adding that the trial of Musharraf alone would be selective if others mentioned in the Emergency Proclamation, November 3, 2007, were spared.
The High Treason Act 1973 clearly ropes in “the collaborators, abettors and facilitators alike”. It was the legal obligation after the restoration of the constitution in its original form as a result of the 18th Amendment, he added.
He pointed out that the legitimacy conferred by the judiciary to the general and others dictators also lost its validity after the adoption of the 18th Amendment as the High Treason Act 1973 was applicable to abrogating or suspending of the constitution since March 1956, he added.
He said the trial should commence from October 12, 1999 when Pervez Musharraf toppled the Nawaz-led government.
He pointed out the mala fides of the government because the commencement of the trial from October 1999 would not implicate the then ruling elite, governors, heads of the armed forces as mentioned in the Emergency Proclamation and pursuance of the high treason case with effect from November 2007 tantamount to saving all those involved.
After the 18th Amendment, Khosa said, the judges who approved the abrogation of the constitution would also come under the preview of the high treason act because the ACT did not preclude those judges from the offence if they were responsible for conferring legitimacy to the abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
He maintained that the cases of Maulvi Tameezuddin, Nusrat Bhutto, Zafar Ali Shah and Iqbal Tikka stand revisited and reversed in case of the Sindh High Court Bar Association versus the Federation of Pakistan in July 2009 that restored the judiciary of November 2007. Credit goes to the PPP for not defending the case, he asserted.
He expressed reservations over the timing of the case against which according to him was meant to divert the people’s attention from the government’s failure in the Rawalpindi carnage.
It is also believed that the government did not have sufficient evidence to proceed against Musharraf. “We do not have access to the GHQ. We do not have statements from people concerned. There is also a question mark as to who will give witnesses in the case” Raja Basharat, former Punjab law minister said.
“It seemed the case is weak and government is not serious to pin down Musharraf. In our opinion it is part of traditional tactics to divert attention from the government bungling in Rawalpindi for which Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar feels very proud,” he added.
