Daily Times editorial April 11, 2013

Pandora’s box There is hardly ever a dull moment in Pakistan. The country is still reeling from the troubling nomination and scrutiny process for the elections. Before it could catch its breath however, another intriguing conundrum has emerged. This concerns the five similar petitions before the Supreme Court asking the court to try General (retd) Pervez Musharraf on treason charges under Article 6 because of the imposition of emergency in November 2007. On the first day of the hearing of the case, unpleasant exchanges between the defence counsel and those of the petitioners marred the proceedings, while the defence counsel and the two-member bench of the SC comprising Justices Jawwad S Khwaja and Khilji Arif Hussain also exchanged some stirring remarks. Musharraf’s counsel Ahmad Raza Kasuri saw the petitions as a conspiracy to keep his client away from participation in the elections. He therefore requested the case be postponed till May 20, i.e. after the elections, so as not to restrict his client’s electioneering. The court however, rejected his plea on the ground that since the respondent was not required to put in a personal appearance during the preliminary hearings, there was no need to delay the case so long, and therefore the next hearing, at which the defence counsel would be expected to respond to the petitioners’ charges, would be on April 15. The next line of defence trotted out by Kasuri was even more interesting. He argued that ‘others’, including incumbent COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani were also part of the promulgation of the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) regarding the emergency, and therefore should also be summoned. This, and the exposure of many ‘bigwigs’ from behind the curtain would open a Pandora’s box. Implied in the argument was throwing down the gauntlet to the court to see of it had the courage to summon a serving COAS and other ‘bigwigs’. The smokescreen sought to be thrown up revolved around other holders of high office, e.g. top Generals, Governors, the prime minister, etc, being equally responsible and therefore Musharraf should not be singled out in this regard. This line of argument did not cut much ice with the court however, which stated clearly that whatever happens, including the opening of Pandora’s box, justice would be done and be seen to be done. As to the ‘other’ actors, the court confined itself to the answer that notices had only been sent to the respondents named in the petitions. Nor did the court find Ahmad Raza Kasuri’s typical arrogance in describing the judges as ‘schoolboys’ when he was such a senior counsel amusing. However, the bench did not accede to the petitioners’ appeal that Musharraf be placed under arrest. In response to Kasuri’s assertion that Musharraf had reservations about some judges, the bench said these should be conveyed and if found valid, the concerned judges would recuse themselves and a fresh bench could be formed (in passing, it may be noted that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has already recused himself from the case). During the hearing, the ministry of interior confirmed in compliance with the court’s directive that Musharraf's name had indeed been put on the exit control list earlier, and that the notification had been renewed. One can now clearly understand why the military establishment pressed Musharraf not to return to the country to participate in the elections after a four-year self-imposed exile. Their worst nightmares are now beginning to come true. First and foremost that feared embarrassment if, as has now come to pass, Musharraf’s enemies decided to take him on. There is little doubt that the judiciary has so far not shown any animus against the respondent in this case, despite all that he did to the superior judiciary. Now inevitably, and even at the hands of the defence counsel, the military top brass faces being embarrassed and made controversial by being dragged into the case at this crucial juncture on the eve of the elections and when the armed forces are heavily involved in fighting the terrorists. This is quite apart from the nightmare of the security threats to Mushrraf’s life. Whatever else he may or may not be, Mushrraf after all is still an ex-COAS, and the army would not like to see their former chief humiliated or dragged over the coals. The country waits with bated breath to see the outcome of this historic first, where a military coup-maker (twice, it may be added, 1999 and 2007) would be held to accountability for his violation (sadly only the 2007 one) of the constitution.