Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The Truth about Musharraf’s Trials

Retired army chief and ex-president Pervez Musharraf is incarcerated in his own farm house pending trials against various charges brought about in citizen’s appeals before superior judiciary. These are as follows:
1.       Treason by way of abrogation of the constitution of Pakistan: There is a document signed by him in the form of the “provisional constitutional order” which is a material proof, but in the absence of legislation including the offence in the penal code, the matter is open to debate and the punishment will have to be assessed as a new precedent. The justices will also have to take into account the intention behind the act. As for his accomplices, people he consulted before issuing the order cannot be charged as abettors. He may even have prayed to God for guidance before signing that document, but I would not recommend the justices to issue orders to arrest God. The man who should be in prison is the man who drafted the PCO and Mr. Musharraf should cooperate with the investigators and reveal his name without delay.
 
2.       Eligibility for Election: I had written a blog way back in 20007 saying that Mr. Musharraf and his associates were guilty of violating their oath of allegiance to the constitution and disqualified themselves from holding public office in future. I still hold that view.
 
3.       Involvement in Benazir Bhutto’s murder: There is no material evidence made public so far, and all enquiries have indicated a complex situation in which many people could be suspected for being beneficiaries from them crime.
 
4.       Negligence in providing protection to Benazir: This charge does not hold water, as three out of the 4 persons in the same vehicle as Benazir remained unharmed and she came out of the hatch of her own free will. If the president is to be held responsible for the deaths of passers-by in terrorist attacks the Mr. Zardari has to take the blame thousands of deaths in the last four and a half years.
5.       Dismissal and house arrest of judges: The action was indeed highly objectionable and could be inferred as persecution (condemned in the Holy Qur’an as worse than murder). But it is a unique case in which the victims have taken it upon themselves to judge the case – in a way taking the law in their own hands. Perhaps a tribunal of retired justices should be formed to try the case in which the aggrieved judges should appear as plaintiffs. After all, no body is above the law.

No comments:

Post a Comment