A dictator’s indictment
It is commendable that the army — on the face of it — did not attempt to step in to try and stymie the process.
One can’t help but see the irony that the many of the superior court judges that the former president has now been accused of detaining (as part of his treason charge) in fact validated his military coup in 1999. DESIGN: FAIZAN DAWOOD
The indictment of former president Musharraf is historic for a number of reasons and can be read as a welcome triumph for democracy in a country that has struggled with military dictatorship for decades.
First and foremost, it is obvious that the biggest achievement here is holding a former army chief accountable for his transgressions against the Constitution of Pakistan for the first time. It is an oft-quoted maxim that no one is above the law — but unfortunately the maxim has hardly been upheld when it comes to Pakistan’s justice system and particularly so when it comes to high officers of the armed forces. Let there be no mistake: his indictment is a big achievement in itself. The next step is the trial, when he will be allowed to defend himself — as he should be.
Before March 31, there was no shortage of speculation that there was no way the army would let a former chief be charged and that there was a deal in the works to get Musharraf out before anything happens. His indictment should put to rest most of this rabble-rousing. That said, it is unfortunately not without reason that this sort of speculation was rife from the day the special court was formed. Not many should be blamed for thinking that he would get a safe exit given this country’s history of letting the high and mighty off the hook to live comfortably in exile. Two appreciations are in order here. One, of the three judges of the special court, who not only had to deal with all sorts of frustrating antics by some on Musharraf’s defence team, but also would have been hearing all sorts of theories about the futility of their actions and orders. Two, it is commendable that the army — on the face of it — did not attempt to step in to try and stymie the process, as it very well could have and as has been the case so often in the past. And therein lies the rub: just because it has historically been the case does not mean it should have been assumed, particularly by the media, that this entire exercise was futile. Trend, after all, is not destiny. That said, one can’t help but see the irony that the many of the superior court judges that the former president has now been accused of detaining (as part of his treason charge) in fact validated his military coup in 1999.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 1st, 2014.
First and foremost, it is obvious that the biggest achievement here is holding a former army chief accountable for his transgressions against the Constitution of Pakistan for the first time. It is an oft-quoted maxim that no one is above the law — but unfortunately the maxim has hardly been upheld when it comes to Pakistan’s justice system and particularly so when it comes to high officers of the armed forces. Let there be no mistake: his indictment is a big achievement in itself. The next step is the trial, when he will be allowed to defend himself — as he should be.
Before March 31, there was no shortage of speculation that there was no way the army would let a former chief be charged and that there was a deal in the works to get Musharraf out before anything happens. His indictment should put to rest most of this rabble-rousing. That said, it is unfortunately not without reason that this sort of speculation was rife from the day the special court was formed. Not many should be blamed for thinking that he would get a safe exit given this country’s history of letting the high and mighty off the hook to live comfortably in exile. Two appreciations are in order here. One, of the three judges of the special court, who not only had to deal with all sorts of frustrating antics by some on Musharraf’s defence team, but also would have been hearing all sorts of theories about the futility of their actions and orders. Two, it is commendable that the army — on the face of it — did not attempt to step in to try and stymie the process, as it very well could have and as has been the case so often in the past. And therein lies the rub: just because it has historically been the case does not mean it should have been assumed, particularly by the media, that this entire exercise was futile. Trend, after all, is not destiny. That said, one can’t help but see the irony that the many of the superior court judges that the former president has now been accused of detaining (as part of his treason charge) in fact validated his military coup in 1999.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 1st, 2014.