Finally, the Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif announced to go for trying the former military Chief Pervez Musharraf for high
treason for subverting the Constitution twice. It was also held that Musharaf
will only be tried for November 3rd 2007 act in which he
declared the emergency and suspended the constitution of Pakistan.
Apparently, this announcement not only removed
all the ambiguity about the Nawaz Sharif`s stance on this issue, but it also sparked
a new debate on whether to target only Musharaf and for the 3rd
November`s act only. Although PML-N government has officially written to the Supreme
Court for this purpose, but the political parties, analysts, legal experts look
to be having different views on it. Even the public opinion is much divided on
this issue. As a result, this issue has become very controversial now.
According to Article 6 of the constitution, “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”. Its interpretation clearly indicates
that whoever commits this crime will be guilt of high treason. So, the question
is, was Pervez Musharaf the only military general who committed this crime?
When no, why to select only him for the trial?
In addition to this, if Musharaf is tried under Article 6, why
only for the emergency of 3rd November 2007? Does the military take
over on 12th October, 1999 not come under this Article? According to
the legal experts, the 3rd November emergency was the result of the
military coup of the 12th October. Thus, the prime and relatively
bigger act was of the 1999. Then, why not to start from there? It is also questionable
to treat the former chief of army staff Pervez Musharaf as a single individual.
The question is, can an individual really sack a democratically government
especially when he is in the plane in the air? The answer is of course no.
On the 1999`s coup, almost all the institutions of the
country including the army, the judiciary, the media as well as most of the
political and religious leaders supported him. That was their collective
support that enabled Pervez Musharaf to easily rule over the country for about
10 years. Consequently, the act of 12th October 1999 cannot be
considered as the crime of only one individual. As per the Article 6(2), “Any
person aiding or abetting acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty
of high treason.” Then, why to sing out only Musharaf? If the judges, media and
the political parties had resisted against Musharaf and the army had also kept
itself neutral in October 1999 as they did in November 2007, had Pakistan faced
another military coup? Had Pakistan got involved in the war against terrorism? On
top of it, could we not have avoided the drone attacks and the reactionary
suicide attacks resulting in thousands of innocent people and the army-men?
The supporters of the cutoff date of 3rd November
2007, argue that the military takeover in 1999 had been validated not only by
the Supreme Court, but also by the Parliament, thus, it should be treated as a
close transaction. However, the question is, can the judiciary and/or the
parliament anyhow validate an openly unconstitutional, illegal, unethical and
non-political act of high treason? We know very well that the Article 248 of
the Constitution of Pakistan apparently gives immunity to the sitting President
of Pakistan. But, despite this provision, the Supreme Court raised the question
on its interpretation, and on the same matter, a democratically elected Prime
Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was disqualified and sent back home.
Taking into account this, can any legal expert quote a similar
Article (like 248) of the Constitution which somehow gives immunity to the
generals, judges, politicians, bureaucracy and the media on aiding or abetting the
person who is abrogating, subverting or suspending the Constitution? When no,
why try to justify the unconstitutional validation of the subversion of Constitution
of 1999? It is also on record that the present Supreme Court convicted and disqualified
about 100 sitting judges for taking oath on PCO in 2007. If that act was committed only by one individual Pervez Musharaf, then why were these judges sacked?
Therefore, it is wise to concentrate on the more important
and directly public relevant issues so that the public problems can be resolved
or reduced for which they voted for PML-N. However, if despite the above-sated
references, the present government insists on trying only the Rd. General
Pervez Musharf and also only in respect of the 3rd November`s act, then
a Pandora box will surely open which will not serve Pakistan at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment