Of course, charging an ex-Chief of Army staff with treason will help us fight terrorism

[Areesh]

After many hiccups and a long wait, the day has finally come and former president Pervez Musharraf has been indicted for treason. This is a new chapter in the history of Pakistan, for reasons both, good and bad.

However, before going into the reasons and the impact of this verdict, I think it is pertinent to recap the situation that led to the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007 – the alleged violation of Article 6 of the constitution. Since the matter cannot be considered in isolation, let’s begin from the presidential reference against the former chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry.

The lawyers’ movement

The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) investigates charges against judges, as clearly mentioned in Article 209 of the constitution. The unrest began on March 9, 2007 when the then president filed a reference to the SJC on the advice of the then prime minister, Shaukat Aziz.

Sidelining Article 209, the lawyers’ movement made the SJC irrelevant. No one cared about the charges of nepotism, misconduct and corruption in the reference; rather, Iftikhar Chaudhry emerged as someone who stood against the dictator.

The irony was that he himself had supported this same dictator every now and then.

If you take a step back in time, you might remember the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on May 13, 2000 which claimed that Nawaz Sharif’s era was corrupt, ineffective and a ‘one man rule’, and hence, the overthrow of his government on October 12, 1999 was justified. Incidentally, Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of the judges in that 12-member court who favoured the military coup.

Not only that, he was also one of the nine judges who validated the Proclamation of Emergency dated October 14, 1999 and the Provisional Constitutional Order-I (PCO-I), as well as the referendum. In addition, he marked his presence in the five-member bench that validated the legal framework order issued by General Musharraf. He was also part of the five-member bench which passed judgment in favour of Musharraf’s uniform and the 17th Amendment.

Moreover, Iftikhar Chaudhry was the chief justice when the Supreme Court allowed Musharraf to be re-elected in uniform in 2007.

My question is, if the judgements stated above were wrong, why hasn’t the treason trial been initiated from October 12, 1999 against not only Pervez Musharraf but also Iftikhar Chaudhry and others who validated the coup and subsequent actions?

If these judgments are correct, there seems to be no reason for blaming Pervez Musharraf for the coup or calling him a dictator, especially when the Supreme Court itself allowed him to amend the constitution as well.

In retrospect, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had the golden opportunity to either reconcile and strengthen civil-military relations or initiate the trial of Pervez Musharraf over the military coup of October 12, 1999.

Unfortunately, he failed to do either.

By not pursuing the trial from October 12, he himself has endorsed the military coup, thereby accepting that he was guilty of hijacking from the ground. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court validating the military coup stands tall, leaving no reason to consider Musharraf a usurper.

After being restored on July 20, 2007 the then chief justice adopted the confrontation mode with the executive and literally paralysed the government.

The chaos this resulted in provided an even playing field to the terrorists and the wave of suicide attacks began, mainly targeting law enforcement agencies. Keeping in mind the impending general elections and change in military command, it was a huge challenge to ensure a peaceful transition to the next elected government.

Law and order in 2007

Again, if we go back in history, the situation was extremely turbulent in the year 2007.

For one, there were the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) clerics challenging the writ of the state and threatening suicide attacks across the country. Then, there was an insurgency in the Swat district where the gang of a local cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, started beheading security personnel, killing lady health workers, banning polio vaccination campaigns and bombing girls’ schools and barber shops. There were suicide attacks on security check posts and on buses of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban announced the imposition of the Shariah in their territories and started public beheading.

There were at least 20 suicide attacks in 2007, mostly targeting military and security personnel. Then, there was a suicide blast at Islamabad Airport. The Punjab Minister for Social Welfare, Zil-e-Huma Usman was killed while there was an assassination attempt on the then Interior Minister, Aftab Sherpao.

Musharraf’s plane came under fire during the Lal Masjid saga and there was a suicide attack on the army officers’ mess in Tarbela Ghazi.

In the same year, Maulana Hassan Jan, who issued a fatwa against suicide bombings, was shot dead and almost 100 people were killed in sectarian violence in Parachinar in three days. A suicide blast took place in a mosque on Eidul Azha in an assassination attempt on the Interior Minister, Aftab Sherpao. He survived but more than 50 were killed in the attack. Then, a suicide blast occurred close to the residence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Around 150 people were killed in the attack on Benazir Bhutto’s convoy when she returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007.

Quite understandably, the economy suffered terribly during this time. All this took place in 2007 with the general elections expected to be held at the end of the year. Hence, a peaceful, democratic transition was a huge challenge for the then government.

How did the government try to improve the situation?

Keeping in mind the above facts, there is no doubt that the country was in a state of emergency. The then Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, wrote a letter to President Pervez Musharraf urging him to take measures to handle the situation. After in-depth consultations with all the stake holders including the prime minister, governors of all four provinces and top brass of the military and Corps Commanders, President Musharraf declared an emergency by exercising Article 232 of the Constitution of Pakistan to deal with the menace of extremism and terrorism.

During all this turbulence in 2007, the judiciary remained hostile towards the government and state machinery and kept releasing alleged terrorists. Hence, the judiciary was also addressed and the judges who didn’t take oath on the new PCO were dismissed.

Inaction at that time would have been suicidal for the country and since the constitution did not provide any solution to the situation, extraordinary measures had to be taken.

It must be remembered that Musharraf was holding dual office at the time. Announcing an emergency as an army chief doesn’t negate the fact that he was also the president. One must also remember that an emergency was imposed on October 14, 1999 by the army chief and the Supreme Court validated it.

After imposing the emergency, he held the constitution in abeyance for a limited time which was not a violation of Article 6 at that time. It was the 18th Amendment, introduced in 2010, which termed it an act of treason. Logically speaking, one cannot and should not apply it on November 3, 2007.

Another point to note is that a treason trial can only be initiated by the federal government while this trial against Musharraf has been initiated on the Supreme Court’s order. And yet, the former president has been indicted for violating clause one while clause two which calls aiders and abetters guilty of high treason has been ignored. There are serious concerns about the members of the special court as well, which need to be addressed for impartiality.

This trial is historical and the first of its kind in the country. Apart from all the ‘ifs and buts’, it is a fact that the former president not only returned to Pakistan, he also appeared in court against his doctor’s advice, surrendering to the rule of law.

Let’s hope that all measures of justice will be taken without any victimisation.

Following the thumb rule, the principal of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ should be given to those who don’t consider Musharraf responsible for treason. And it must be noted that while the country and military are in a state of war, the killers of 50,000 Pakistanis are ‘stakeholders of peace’ and we have spotted one traitor.

Of course, charging an ex-Chief of Army staff with treason will help us fight terrorism – The Express Tribune Blog

 

[janon]

That's a strawman argument. Mushy is not being charged so as to fight terrorism. He is being charged for having usurped power.

 

[Areesh]

Brilliant article. A big joota on the face of the farce called treason trial case and on the ganjas of PML(N)

That's a strawman argument. Mushy is not being charged so as to tackle terrorism. He is being charged for having usurped power.

When you have dialogue with murderers of 50000 Pakistanis and consider them stakeholders of the country then indicting former COAS and president for treason makes no sense. This is t he point genius.

 

[Bratva]

Brilliant article. A big joota on the face of the farce called treason trial case and on the ganjas of PML(N)



When you have dialogue with murderers of 50000 Pakistanis and consider them stakeholders of the country then indicting former COAS and president for treason makes no sense. This is t he point genius.

Yara, Didn't Musharaaf do dialogues with them besides releasing their hundreds of captives and paying them crores of rupees as compensation multiple time?

You and I both know, Musharraf declared emergency because Supreme court was about to announce his Dual role as COAS and President illegitimate. It has nothing to do with the security situation prevalent in the country.

Did security situation improved during the emergency period? But what happened during emergency period, Judges got booted, NRO implemented, half hearted operation in SAWAT. So it was for purely political reasons he broke the constitution and imposed emegency

 

[Areesh]

Yara, Didn't Musharaaf do dialogues with them besides releasing their hundreds of captives and paying them crores of rupees as compensation multiple time?

Mushy at least didn't trial someone for treason while doing that. By the way do read the article. It makes sense. Something that Mush haters lack.

 

[janon]

When you have dialogue with murderers of 50000 Pakistanis and consider them stakeholders of the country then indicting former COAS and president for treason makes no sense. This is t he point genius.

These are two separate issues. Yes, it is a shameful travesty that Pakistan is now dialoguing with the TTP. But does that mean that the person who used the country's military to overthrow the very institutions he had sworn to protect and uphold, should be let off freely?

The TTP is trying to overthrow the Pakistani state and get rid of its constitution using their fighters. Mushy used the country's army (trained and paid for by the country) to do exactly the same thing.

Analyze each case on its own merits, without comparing to another.

 

[Areesh]

These are two separate issues. Yes, it is a shameful travesty that Pakistan is now dialoguing with the TTP. But does that mean that the person who used the country's military to overthrow the very institutions he had sworn to protect and uphold, should be let off freely?

The TTP is trying to overthrow the Pakistani state using their fighters. Mushy used the country's army (trained and paid for by the country) to do exactly the same thing.

Analyze each case on its own merits, without comparing to another.

Bold part.

For that the Mushy should have been trialed for his acts of 12 October 1999. But here he is being trialed for imposing emergency in November 2007. Big difference. Article also says the same. He imposed emergency as the president of Pakistan. While he imposed martial law in 1999 as COAS. The govt aren't trialing him for the 1999 martial law.

Does the govt want to say indirectly that the acts of musharraf back in October 1999 were justified?

 

[Areesh]

You and I both know, Musharraf declared emergency because Supreme court was about to announce his Dual role as COAS and President illegitimate. It has nothing to do with the security situation prevalent in the country.

Well that's what you think. Or else being a president of Pakistan he had all the rights to impose emergency. It was the "azaad adliya" that gave him the right to be president and impose emergency.

 

[janon]

Bold part.

For that the Mushy should have been trialed for his acts of 12 October 1999. But here he is being trialed for imposing emergency in November 2007. Big difference. Article also says the same. He imposed emergency as the president of Pakistan. While he imposed martial law in 1999 as COAS. The govt aren't trialing him for the 1999 martial law.

Does the govt want to say indirectly that the acts of musharraf back in October 1999 were justified?

The reason for that is rather obvious - if they try him for his coup in '99, then a lot of skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet, a lot of influential people's roles will also have to be scrutinized. Politicians and judiciary included. They don't want that, but they also don't want him to go unpunished, so they are cunningly trying him for the events of 2007 rather than 1999.

Now that is problematic in principle, but in practice, an ordinary Pakistani should be happy that he will spend time in jail one way or other. Think about it this way - if you know that a person commited murder, but he doesn't get tried for it, but he does get tried and prosecuted for burglary (which he may not even have commited). Would you campaign for his release from prison, or would you be glad that he got to spend some time in there, although not for the more serious charge?

 

[Horseman]

The reason for that is rather obvious - if they try him for his coup in '99, then a lot of skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet, a lot of influential people's roles will also have to be scrutinized. Politicians and judiciary included. They don't want that, but they also don't want him to go unpunished, so they are cunningly trying him for the events of 2007 rather than 1999.

Now that is problematic in principle, but in practice, an ordinary Pakistani should be happy that he will spend time in jail one way or other. Think about it this way - if you know that a person commited murder, but he doesn't get tried for it, but he does get tried and prosecuted for burglary (which he may not even have commited). Would you campaign for his release from prison, or would you be glad that he got to spend some time in there, although not for the more serious charge?

This is called personal vendetta by hypocrites.

 

[Al Bhatti]

April 3, 2014

Musharraf no more a traitor than anyone else

Political reconciliation and stability are more important now than widening the chasm between the civilian-military establishment

The Special Court’s indictment of former president General Pervez Musharraf will go down in Pakistan’s chequered history as the critical point of breaking the all-powerful hold of the country’s untouchable military institution. Having an ex-army chief in the docks and that too for treason, punishable by death, is a shocking development for the civilian and military leadership in the country. Musharraf’s indictment itself sets a precedent irrespective of whether he is allowed to leave the country on grounds of compassion to visit his ailing mother abroad or if he is made an example of at home if found guilty. What the indictment of March 31, however, might do would be to rein in any khakis secretly harbouring such aspirations.

But more significant is this moment’s call for introspection for each stakeholder, whether it’s the leadership in Islamabad or the GHQ or us, the civilians who have been privy to the politicking and chest thumping in the two power centres for decades. Especially for us, for we have elected leaders who have been in cahoots with some dictators and victims of others at one point or another. We have also hailed dictator turned presidents when their ‘stable political environments’ were conducive for the economy, when the fuel prices dipped and foreign investments poured in. But our loyalties too are as fickle as the leaders we pledge allegiance to, and we too lost no time in rallying behind the swelling tide of activism, judicial or electoral, when we felt restless with the king makers. So what do we do? switch sides and choose new allegiances in the name of a resurgent cause, and having elected our democratic leaders we step aside, loyal subjects that we are.

Alas, our activism is only confined to participating in organised protests, when we are swayed by the calls for change and eager to jump on a popular bandwagon and so we set forth to changing the face of politics, of society, of finally realising Jinnah’s Pakistan. But when it comes to taking to the street to protest against the shameful sentencing of a hapless minority citizen accused of blasphemy, or demanding an end to our subservient policies that have made a mockery of our national integrity and sovereignty, when we look the other way and only shake our heads in mock despair over the gang rape of a village woman on the orders of a panchayat (village elders council), we are the silent collaborators, the real traitors who have sold out our own country, our ideals and our pledge to the father of the nation who delivered us Pakistan.

As for Musharraf, in all honesty, does he deserve to be called a traitor for his actions in 2007? For those who proclaim to be defenders of the constitution, who abhor the khakis in the Aiwan-e-Sadr, he is the ultimate traitor, for it was he who dared usurp the Constitution, overthrow an elected government (years earlier, a crime not included in the current charge sheet for which he is indicted) and trample the sanctity of the parliament and the judiciary — the very two institutions whose own mantles are not spotless. Many of the judges have taken oath under him, the same “traitor” they now point fingers at. Many of our political leaders are the byproducts of military rulers, having been groomed, nurtured and sustained by them over the decades. And they are braying for his blood?

Musharraf’s greater crime was his whitewashing the crimes of the plunderers who looted Pakistan and laying out the red carpet for them with the hated National Reconciliation Ordinance. Power is a strange bedfellow; it washes away your crimes and propels you to heights where you are safe, away from the glare of the strobe lights of justice and out of reach of the dirty smatterings of your sins. And so turned out the fate of his NRO beneficiaries whose astuteness helped them stay out of the reach of the judiciary’s slippery grasp.

There is no doubt that the judiciary has come into its own as an independent and powerful pillar of the state, but care must be taken in how it evolves at this critical juncture. Questions are being raised about its impartiality, about why speedy justice is delivered in prosecuting some figures while months and years pass before even hope for a hearing comes for cases that demand immediate review. It may not be so and no doubt the judges deciding Musharraf’s crimes are acting in good faith in accordance with the sanctity of their profession, but the general’s trial and consequent indictment has come to resemble a witch-hunt.

Aspersions are also being cast at Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for egging the judiciary to bring Musharraf to his knees in the playing out of a Medici style political vendetta. This does not bode well for Sharif’s administration or the judiciary’s image.

If Musharraf has to pay for his sins then the court should widen the ambit and book everyone who collaborated and benefitted from their links with military rulers in the past including the respected members of the judiciary. Why dangle the noose on a calendar year marked 2007? The irony here is that any such probe of the parliament’s directory would only return crimson markings on every page. And do we really want to go there?

Hasn’t Pakistan Muslim League — Nawaz (PML-N) displayed magnanimity in forgiving the past sins of its arch-rival, the Pakistan Peoples Party and buried the hatchet with other sworn enemies? The third PML-N government was hailed as one that extended goodwill and adopted reconciliation for its political foes. Sharif’s a politically mature leader and it is hoped that he will be able to steer Pakistan out of its security and economic deadlock.

It is time Musharraf’s case is laid to rest. Far greater issues are looming ahead for Pakistan with critical political and security decisions to be made in lieu of the rapidly changing geostrategic dynamics. Gunning for Musharraf can only widen the fissures between the civilian leadership and the military, a prospect, which will not benefit anyone. And the truth is neither the Pakistan Army nor the civilians have much appetite for future coups. Musharraf’s tenure took good care of at least that part.

Writer: Faryal Leghari

Musharraf no more a traitor than anyone else | GulfNews.com

 

[Areesh]

The reason for that is rather obvious - if they try him for his coup in '99, then a lot of skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet, a lot of influential people's roles will also have to be scrutinized. Politicians and judiciary included. They don't want that, but they also don't want him to go unpunished, so they are cunningly trying him for the events of 2007 rather than 1999.

Now that is problematic in principle, but in practice, an ordinary Pakistani should be happy that he will spend time in jail one way or other. Think about it this way - if you know that a person commited murder, but he doesn't get tried for it, but he does get tried and prosecuted for burglary (which he may not even have commited). Would you campaign for his release from prison, or would you be glad that he got to spend some time in there, although not for the more serious charge?

It is either complete or no justice. You can't pick and chose. Actually in this case. This is not rule of law. This is judicial persecution of an individual to settle some old score.