The trial of retired president Pervez Musharraf is taking
such a nasty turn that it seems necessary to examine the facts.
I shall refer to him as retired president Musharraf, as I
believe that a man should be called by the last or highest post he held. In my
opinion he seized to be a general as soon as he assumed the office of full-time
chief executive or president of Pakistan. If he had obtained approval of Supreme
Court of his time under duress for holding two posts, that judgment should be
considered null and void and the justices should not be ashamed to admit it.
Let us reconstruct history in the light of the public
statements of Mr. Musharraf himself.
Since he returned to Pakistan in March, 2013 he has
repeatedly said that he is ready to face all legal and constitutional charges
against himself. He promptly went to various courts to obtain bails in all the
cases registered against him and on the 2nd January, 2014 he was on
the way to the judicial commission when his vehicle suddenly changed course and
ended up in the military cardiac institute. The public has not heard from his
own mouth that he was sick or is in pain. Is Mr. Musharraf a free man and is he
taking his own decisions? Are his lawyers saying what wants to be said?
In August, 1988 when General Zia ul Haq had dismissed the
Junejo government and fresh elections were called in which Peoples Party seemed
favorite to win, questions were being raised if he could be tried for treason
under article 6 of the constitution in spite of the 8th
constitutional amendment. He died in a military transport plane crash on 18th
August the same year and was saved the indignity of a treason trial. Could it
be that this time the wolf actually showed up and the detour of his vehicle was
actually a hijacking? Only the man himself can tell and a live television
interview of retired president Pervez Musharraf has become overdue.
As for the case itself there are many possibilities. In his
television speech he had said that he had declared emergency in the country.
Did he really believe that the document he had signed was in line with the
provisions of the constitution? Later he had admitted that what he did on that
day was a mistake? We need to know exactly what had happened on that day, so
that if there are any civilians who machinate military dictatorships and bring bad name to the armed forces, they may
be exposed.
