If Musharraf is convicted, it is likely that people like the Interior minister Brig(R). Ijaz Shah and all those who stood by Musharraf and helped him abrogate the constitution, on and off the screen, will also be held liable and likely convicted, writes Awais Babar.
High treason.—(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
There is no such thing as coincidence until one comes across one. The dramatic departure of Nawaz Sharif may have jeopardized government's accountability saga as well as the former's righteousness tales from behind the bars , however, nonetheless has magically opened a door of opportunity for General Pervaiz Musharraf. Mr Musharraf is accused of unlawfully suspending the constitution and instituting emergency rule in 2007.
The nation is conscious of the fact that hypothetically speaking, even if courts do convict the former dictator he is not going to serve any sentence for reasons known best to everyone. Then why is it that an attempt is being made to fortify the former ruler who has not got much to lose anyway? The chief reason for that is the symbolic consequences intrinsic in political cases. Add to this the resentment civilian elements hold for not having been able to bring any dictator even close to the law. I had envisaged the idea in my previous articles that it appears though as if Musharraf's death is being awaited as he is a dilemma.
Some legal cases are a dilemma or to be more accurate become a dilemma due to unintended consequences of thoughtless plans or events. For instance, the case of Mumtaz Qadri was a dilemma. On one hand was the State and its citizens at large, and on the other people who were sympathetic towards Mumtaz Qadri. Convicting him became a problem for the state as tackling his sympathisers which are quite many was an uphill task; not convicting was a bigger problem as the whole world would have said that we as a nation celebrate such acts and even go as far as validating them.
Similarly, Musharraf case too is a dilemma. Convicting him would likely lower the everlastingly untarnished image the forces possess and would act as a deterrent for future aggressors. It would also indirectly bring the other dictators in the history in bad books. Whereas, not convicting him would not be less than a predicament either. The road to reign will remain open for future yearners with no fear as to consequences, at least no legal ones.
The dilemma can be magnified in the light of memorable words of the worth ex-Chairman of Senate Mr. Raza Rabbani, "Article 6 of the Constitution has become virtually redundant to prevent the derailment of democracy in future", voiced a few years ago in a ceremony held in connection with the project Majesty and Transparency in the Parliament (RMTP)”; aimed at strengthening people’s trust in democratic institutions.
He insisted that if the constitution is to hold any strength in preventing its own abuse the parliamentarians will have to hold their ground. “The downtrodden segment of the society is not prepared to defend the Parliament at this point,” he said, and very rightly so.
Let us explore various angles to this dilemma which will help us see as to why the incumbent government through the Ministry of Interior filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), requesting it to set aside a special court's decision to reserve its judgement in the case which was given on Nov 19. This decision came in the aftermath of when the government on October 24 sacked its prosecution team and in effect attempted to renew the whole case, apparently a tactic to delay the outcome of the case, the attempt which the Special Court thwarted categorically by denying the government’s request.
Apart from the general protection provided to ones in uniform, this move by the Ministry is in fact due to other pertinent reasons. If Musharraf is convicted, it is likely that people like the Interior minister Brig(R). Ijaz Shah and all those who stood by Musharraf and helped him abrogate the constitution, on and off the screen, will also be held liable and likely convicted. This is not my desire, but what the law says.
The subsection 2 of Article 6 of the constitution of Pakistan reads as under:
"Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason." It should now be abundantly clear that this case is not just about Musharraf only but all those who were involved in the scheme.
Furthermore, the most horrifying section for Musharraf and his saviours is subsection 2A. This section forces the judge's hand and in no circumstances allows him to give any lenience to those convicted under Article 6. Not only the trial courts but also the High Court and Supreme Court will not be able to give covers to unconstitutional acts under the umbrella of 'doctrine of necessity' etc.
Hence, abrogating the constitution will hold the perpetrators strictly liable with no justification to offer and even if they do it shall hold no value.
Accordingly, the government had no choice but to attempt to delay the inevitable and hence the author's surmise that Musharraf's death is being awaited as allowing the law to take its course will have very unpredictable implications for unpredictable number of people.
Subsection (2A) of the Article 6 reads as:
An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]
This subsection barring courts from giving any cover to abrogation of constitution is the gift of the 18th amendment, legislated upon by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in 2010.
It would not be wrong to suggest that Asif Ali Zardari is indeed a very intelligent politician and has the ability to come back at his foes without them even knowing. The courts are bound by the laws ordained by the Parliament especially if they are in such unequivocal discourse.
In any case, Musharraf's resolve to stay abroad and avoid the proceedings has abashed the forces' own image. Saving him is not much of a problem as every organ of the state is in subservience to the everlasting bosses. However, it is hurting the consciousness of a soldier's mind who is supposed to be fearless; the situation has forced him to inwardly hate those pointing fingers at its ex-chief yet at the same time wishes for him to face the heat regardless.
The best solution for Musharraf and all those who could potentially be held liable is that he seeks unconditional forgiveness for the illegal acts he committed (if he thinks he has committed any) and also remind the nation of the good acts he has done. This may not have any legal bearing but will be significant nonetheless in bringing past to a fairly logical end in the historical sense; leaving less remnants behind.
High treason.—(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]
There is no such thing as coincidence until one comes across one. The dramatic departure of Nawaz Sharif may have jeopardized government's accountability saga as well as the former's righteousness tales from behind the bars , however, nonetheless has magically opened a door of opportunity for General Pervaiz Musharraf. Mr Musharraf is accused of unlawfully suspending the constitution and instituting emergency rule in 2007.
The nation is conscious of the fact that hypothetically speaking, even if courts do convict the former dictator he is not going to serve any sentence for reasons known best to everyone. Then why is it that an attempt is being made to fortify the former ruler who has not got much to lose anyway? The chief reason for that is the symbolic consequences intrinsic in political cases. Add to this the resentment civilian elements hold for not having been able to bring any dictator even close to the law. I had envisaged the idea in my previous articles that it appears though as if Musharraf's death is being awaited as he is a dilemma.
Some legal cases are a dilemma or to be more accurate become a dilemma due to unintended consequences of thoughtless plans or events. For instance, the case of Mumtaz Qadri was a dilemma. On one hand was the State and its citizens at large, and on the other people who were sympathetic towards Mumtaz Qadri. Convicting him became a problem for the state as tackling his sympathisers which are quite many was an uphill task; not convicting was a bigger problem as the whole world would have said that we as a nation celebrate such acts and even go as far as validating them.
Similarly, Musharraf case too is a dilemma. Convicting him would likely lower the everlastingly untarnished image the forces possess and would act as a deterrent for future aggressors. It would also indirectly bring the other dictators in the history in bad books. Whereas, not convicting him would not be less than a predicament either. The road to reign will remain open for future yearners with no fear as to consequences, at least no legal ones.
The dilemma can be magnified in the light of memorable words of the worth ex-Chairman of Senate Mr. Raza Rabbani, "Article 6 of the Constitution has become virtually redundant to prevent the derailment of democracy in future", voiced a few years ago in a ceremony held in connection with the project Majesty and Transparency in the Parliament (RMTP)”; aimed at strengthening people’s trust in democratic institutions.
He insisted that if the constitution is to hold any strength in preventing its own abuse the parliamentarians will have to hold their ground. “The downtrodden segment of the society is not prepared to defend the Parliament at this point,” he said, and very rightly so.
Let us explore various angles to this dilemma which will help us see as to why the incumbent government through the Ministry of Interior filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), requesting it to set aside a special court's decision to reserve its judgement in the case which was given on Nov 19. This decision came in the aftermath of when the government on October 24 sacked its prosecution team and in effect attempted to renew the whole case, apparently a tactic to delay the outcome of the case, the attempt which the Special Court thwarted categorically by denying the government’s request.
Apart from the general protection provided to ones in uniform, this move by the Ministry is in fact due to other pertinent reasons. If Musharraf is convicted, it is likely that people like the Interior minister Brig(R). Ijaz Shah and all those who stood by Musharraf and helped him abrogate the constitution, on and off the screen, will also be held liable and likely convicted. This is not my desire, but what the law says.
The subsection 2 of Article 6 of the constitution of Pakistan reads as under:
"Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason." It should now be abundantly clear that this case is not just about Musharraf only but all those who were involved in the scheme.
Furthermore, the most horrifying section for Musharraf and his saviours is subsection 2A. This section forces the judge's hand and in no circumstances allows him to give any lenience to those convicted under Article 6. Not only the trial courts but also the High Court and Supreme Court will not be able to give covers to unconstitutional acts under the umbrella of 'doctrine of necessity' etc.
Hence, abrogating the constitution will hold the perpetrators strictly liable with no justification to offer and even if they do it shall hold no value.
Accordingly, the government had no choice but to attempt to delay the inevitable and hence the author's surmise that Musharraf's death is being awaited as allowing the law to take its course will have very unpredictable implications for unpredictable number of people.
Subsection (2A) of the Article 6 reads as:
An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]
This subsection barring courts from giving any cover to abrogation of constitution is the gift of the 18th amendment, legislated upon by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in 2010.
It would not be wrong to suggest that Asif Ali Zardari is indeed a very intelligent politician and has the ability to come back at his foes without them even knowing. The courts are bound by the laws ordained by the Parliament especially if they are in such unequivocal discourse.
In any case, Musharraf's resolve to stay abroad and avoid the proceedings has abashed the forces' own image. Saving him is not much of a problem as every organ of the state is in subservience to the everlasting bosses. However, it is hurting the consciousness of a soldier's mind who is supposed to be fearless; the situation has forced him to inwardly hate those pointing fingers at its ex-chief yet at the same time wishes for him to face the heat regardless.
The best solution for Musharraf and all those who could potentially be held liable is that he seeks unconditional forgiveness for the illegal acts he committed (if he thinks he has committed any) and also remind the nation of the good acts he has done. This may not have any legal bearing but will be significant nonetheless in bringing past to a fairly logical end in the historical sense; leaving less remnants behind.