Former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s recent disclosure of a ‘safe passage deal’ for General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has re-ignited political tensions in the country. A barrage of statements — some doubting the authenticity of the agreement and others confirming its existence — came from the PPP and the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. On Monday, Musharraf’s camp endorsed Gilani’s revelation, breaking its silence over the issue.
“I’ve no doubt that former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is telling the truth,” Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi, a close aide to Musharraf, told The Express Tribune.
Gilani disclosed at a news conference on July 11 in Karachi that the PPP and PML-N had cut a deal with the ‘establishment’ for giving a safe passage to former president Pervez Musharraf, if he agreed to step down. He also called upon the incumbent ruling party to honour that deal.
Though Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi backed Gilani’s version of events, he disagreed with the choice of words. “The understanding, not deal, was reached on a respectable send-off, not safe passage or safe exit [for Musharraf],” he told The Express Tribune.
Throughout the negotiations, PPP Co-Chairperson Asif Ali Zardari, PML-N chief, incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and some other politicians had been in contact with the then army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, he claimed. “They [the politicians] were not directly communicating with Musharraf,” he clarified.
Qureshi said the ‘understanding’ didn’t bind Musharraf to leave the country after stepping down. “It’s abundantly clear from the fact that Musharraf had spent several months in the country after resigning as president,” he added.
Qureshi, however, regretted that the PML-N did not honour its commitment.
Gilani’s disclosure had prompted clarifications from the government and denials from his own party – which, however, didn’t speak with one voice. PPP Information Secretary Qamar Zaman Kaira objected to the word ‘deal’ but admitted there was an ‘understanding’. He claimed that the PML-N, ANP and JUI-F were all on board.
Asked about contradictions in statements of PPP leaders, insiders pointed to the brewing differences within the party’s senior leadership, particularly the dissenting voices from those who belong to Punjab.
Former premiers Yousaf Raza Gilani and Raja Parvaiz Ashraf are the PPP’s stalwarts from Punjab along with Nazar Muhammad Gondal. And, according to sources, the three politicians are not happy with the party’s senior leadership for ignoring them.
A recent meeting between former interior minister and PPP leader Rehman Malik and NA Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq spurred rumours that the PPP could join the federal government. “This added fuel to the fire as neither Gilani nor Ashraf and Gondal were consulted [before the meeting],” insiders told The Express Tribune.
The mounting pressure on the government from PTI chief Imran Khan and PAT leader Tahirul Qadri lent credence to such rumours.
Prime Minister’s special adviser on national affairs has a different story to tell.
“I know that Asif Zardari had called on Nawaz Sharif along with several other leaders and said they all wanted a parliamentary endorsement for the steps taken by Musharraf on November 3, 2007,” Irfan Siddiqui told The Express Tribune.
He recalled that Zardari had even said that “I [Zardari] have given a commitment to the stakeholders.” Siddiqui, however, left the word ‘stakeholders’ open-ended. “[However] Nawaz Sharif said it in plain words that he was not part of any deal, and hence would not endorse the unconstitutional steps of Musharraf,” Siddiqui recalled. “It all ended there and then.”
According to Siddiqui, Nawaz had said on the floor of the National Assembly that Musharraf’s case would be dealt with in accordance with law and the constitution.
History denies Gilani’s claims, Siddiqui said, adding that “even if there was some understanding to give Musharraf a safe passage it would be with PPP’s own leadership”. “There is neither any mention of giving Musharraf a safe passage nor according parliamentary approval to his unconstitutional steps in any written accord between Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif,” he added.
He said the PML-N had made it clear to Zardari that it would not be responsible for any commitments the PPP had made with Musharraf.
Recalling the agreement between the PPP and the PML-N over the impeachment of Musharraf, Siddiqui said the PML-N had offered the PPP support on three terms: “1.) All sacked judges, including then chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, would be reinstated within 24 hours of Musharraf’s departure; 2.) both the parties would take a decision with a consensus on a new president in case there was 17th Amendment; 3.) and in case 17th Amendment was no more effective, the PPP could nominate its own presidential candidate.”
Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2014.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
@Salman Ahmed: In listening to Aapas Ki Baat over the weekend where Naja, Sethi actually gave references to details from 2008, it appears clear that A) there was a deal as and Qaira claim (and unlike Raza Rabbani amd Farhatullah Babar claim)
B) Nawaz was not part of the deal.
So while Rashi Qureishi maybe correct that there was a deal , he cannt possibly claim that Nawaz was onboard. In fact throughout Gilani's tenure Nawaz kept taunting Gilani for letting the dictator go. If Nawaz had been part of the deal, why would Gilani have kept quiet at that time? There were many issues where Zardari refused to honor his commitment to Nawaz inlcuding resoration of judges, becoming the President himself after agreeing not to and of course letting Musharraf go scot free.. Nawaz showed his displeasure by getting out of the alliance and becoming part of opposition. what more could he have done?
Anyway, the whole deal at that time including NRO was made null and void so why just harp on this part of the deal? Plus Musharraf did get a safe exit at promised. It was his decision to come back knowing full well that there are cases against him in the courts. At that time he used to say 'I am not afraid of anyone. I will face the. Ases.looks like all his bravado flies out of the window when he is at the receiving end.
@Saleem
In any country, the soldiers sacrifice their lives to guard the borders of the country, That does ot give the chief of army staff the right to abrogate the constitution, imprison the elected PM, imprison the CJ and get away scot free.
These fellows making Judiciary as the fool. After spending billions from tax payers money on the charge sheets and prosecution, now the corrupt leaders want their corrupt ex-dictator to have safe-exit or respectable send off.
@Salman Ahmed:
Here is the answer:
NS does not need to honor any commitment made with the army and of all people Musharraf. If indeed NS did acquiesce to any such deals, then there is absolutely no harm in contravening such an understanding because a two bit tinpot dictator and a yalla like Musharraf deserves such unscrupulous treatment.
In case you just woke up from your deep slumber, it was the government appointed prosecutor who brought forth the treason charges against Musharraf and the Special Court presiding over the matter indicted Musharraf on the charges leveled by the government appointed prosecutor.
As for 1999 coup, the reasons for not formally charging Musharraf for the coup is simple - a whole lot of other people and institutions would also have to be indicted and the government does not have the capacity to do the same right now. Don't worry, this particular wish of yours will come true in the near future.
Some simple questions:
1) Has NS blatantly denied the existence of agreements in the past (eg his deal with Musharraf to leave the country) ?
2) How many commitments has Nawaz Sharif honored wrt the Army and the public at large?
3) If there was no "understanding", why did NS not make a hue and cry at the time of his departure and stop him from leaving?
4) If there was no "understanding/agreement" then why is NS insisting that he was acting against Musharraf ONLY because the courts were pushing him to bring action - when under the constitution only the Govt (not the courts) can bring action.
5) If there was no understanding, then why did NS not bring action against Musharraf for the 1999 coup?
Duh!
the understanding was that ex-president will have complete liberty to travel in and out of country as he wishes as well as have his political party established. But because of fear of his popularity PML-N and judiciary took the path of revenge.
What a country. One ruler after another strikes a deal for safe exit, imprisoned for corruption, hanged, shot dead or blasted off a plane.
Let him face the music... he was showing hands to nation now same hand is inside him.... "jaisa karo gay waisa bharo gay"...
Another truck ki batti. Don't you just love them politicians?
Asif you are right. The safe passage deal was honoured to allow him one exit. It was not however a lifetime free pass
The question now is, why didn't he mentioned this before? The timing is odd and I think its a pack of lies
During President Musharraf's rule, the GDP growth was real and flourishing.
Not a 'typo' as is in PML-N 'democratic' rule.
The least PML- N can do now is to honour its commitment, but in PML-N's case, it is as if asking for the moon.
Musharraf got safe exit, and he eventually left the country. It was his decision to come back, he made a stupid call and now he is in fix. He cannot get safe exit every time.
While army is sacrificing its sons and daughters it is ridiculous to see politician playing their own games. This is not the time for frivolous issues like this one. How ever said what can wait.