In nullifying the special court verdict calling for the inclusion of former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, former prime minister Shaukat Aziz and former minister Zahid Hamid in Pervez Musharraf’s treason trial, the Supreme Court has resolved an inherent contradiction in the case. So long as these three individuals were being tried for aiding and abetting Musharraf’s emergency, it could be said that there were many others – numbering in the hundreds – who also made his dictatorship possible. In fact, we could even go back to 1999 and make similar accusations against those who signed off on Musharraf’s first coup. The SC judgement has the potential of reducing the time delay the case has suffered. Any new investigation is likely to take another year. It is high time that a formal trial began in the matter. The SC has noted that only the federal government, not a court, could name individuals to be associated with the case. Additionally, only the federal government has the power to begin a new investigation into the case. The fact is that first and foremost it is Musharraf who needs to be called to account for his actions. There is certainly an indictment to be made against the political class, and even the country as a whole, for how we allowed one man to do so much damage to rule of law, but that man himself has to pay for his crimes.
Once that is done we as a country can grapple with our own culpability for Musharraf’s rise, and guard against it ever happening again. To look for a strongman, one who cares for nothing but his own authority, is a regrettable yet all-too-common failing. But the strongman who takes advantage of this failing acts illegally, and deserves the full force of the law, not just to punish him for letting down the country but to deter future adventurers. It is not very clear however if the federal government is still as serious about the case as it was when it decided to file it. Musharraf, of course, is as unapologetic as ever and still contends that he was what this country needed. He continues to see himself as a saviour – a bold man who did what he had to do. Yet, Musharraf is anything but bold. He is free to defend himself but should do so in front of a real court and not the court of public opinion. He has weaselled out of numerous court appearances by citing ill health. His latest gambit was to post a picture of himself lying in a hospital bed and now he has requested a one-time exemption to be allowed to receive treatment abroad. Only Musharraf and his doctors know whether his ailments are real or a convenient excuse but many will not disagree with the point that the former dictator is a clear flight risk and so he should receive treatment in the country. After all, if Pakistan is a country Musharraf loves so much that he was willing to tear up its constitution for its sake, why would he ever want to leave it?
