A frozen order

Former military dictator Pervez Musharraf remains out of the country as the high treason case against him continues to linger in our courts. Having been granted permission to travel abroad on medical grounds, Musharraf has not returned to the country despite several court notices. There is nothing unexpected about this part of the episode. What was somewhat unexpected is the decision by a special court in Peshawar to order the freezing of Musharraf’s bank accounts and confiscation of his property in Pakistan. The court rejected Musharraf’s request to record a statement via Skype – stating that the case could not be tried in absentia. Musharraf is known to own seven immovable properties and nine bank accounts. However, according to a media report, none of the properties could be attached to the court orders due to a number of complications which are worth pondering over. The first of these properties, 400 kanals of agricultural land in Bahawalpur, was sold in 2014 only a month after treason proceedings against him were started. Such a sale should have been banned by court orders before the trial began. Five of his plots are in military-operated housing schemes. Musharraf’s lawyers claim that since Musharraf is just an allottee of the land, the properties cannot be seized. The seventh property, the Chak Shahzad farmhouse, cannot be seized because it is under litigation. Musharraf’s wife claims the property is in her name.

The situation seems farcical. How can property allotted to an accused in a military-run housing scheme not be seized by the government under court orders? This is a strange ‘legal’ logic that the government may need to challenge. The court’s adjournment of the hearing until Musharraf is arrested or surrenders indicates that the court has chosen a dignified way of closing the case. The real impact of seizing any assets owned by Musharraf in Pakistan was only ever likely to be symbolic, but such symbolism would have been important. Instead it seems none of Musharraf’s seven immovable properties will be seized due to one reason or another. It is unlikely that Musharraf’s bank accounts have any significant amounts remaining. At least half of these accounts are joint or company accounts, which complicates matters for the freeze order. What then is the worth of the courts ‘seize and freeze’ order? In a strange way, an order meant to force Musharraf to return to the country signifies the exact opposite. The government and the judiciary do not possess enough bait to force Musharraf to come and face the charges against him. The court has done its bit to spur the government to fulfil its orders. It is now up to the administration to prove how serious it is about forcing Musharraf to return to face the cases against him.