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.
