Daily Times editorial April 24, 2013

Recognition of necessity The federal caretaker government, through Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Irfan Qadir, has thrown up its hands before the Supreme Court (SC), expressing its inability to put General (retd) Pervez Musharraf on trial on treason charges under Article 6. The AGP in his five-page submission before the three-member bench hearing five petitions to initiate a treason trial against Musharraf clearly spelt out the caretaker government’s position that such a trial was beyond its mandate. The government was fully extended in its duty to provide security for some 20,000 candidates all over the country, coordinating for this purpose with the police, security forces and the Election Commission of Pakistan. Besides, citing various precedents from international law, the AGP argued that the mandate of the caretaker government was confined to conducting the day-to-day business of the government in preparation for handing over the reins of power to the next elected government after the May 11 elections. The government was reluctant to initiate any action or take any step that would bind the hands of the incoming elected government or confront it with an irreversible situation. In similar vein, the AGP went on, the caretaker government was not entering into any agreements wit the IMF or other international financial institutions, as this too would be considered ultra vires of its mandate. It may be recalled that Moeen Qureshi, that imported caretaker prime minister, during his short stint had committed the country to a programme with the IMF that the incoming elected government then had to live with, arguably to its detriment. The court was less than pleased with the response of the caretaker government and Justice Jawwad S Khwaja remarked that it appeared the government had neither taken, nor intended to take any steps towards initiating a treason trial against Musharraf. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain remarked that it appeared that despite the court’s orders, the Ministry of Interior too has neither acted nor plans to take action against the former dictator. This was confirmed by the statement in court by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry that no file, notes, or any other material was available on record to show that any action had been undertaken to lodge a complaint under Article 6 and the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 or a special court created for the purpose under the Criminal Law (Amended) Special Courts Act 1976. In the last hearing on April 17, Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Acting Secretary Sohail Qadeer Siddiqui had informed the court that the Law Ministry did not have any document indicating the initiation of any process against Musharraf for subverting the constitution. He also pointed out that according to a law notification of December 29, 1994, the Interior Ministry was responsible for taking such action. In the meantime the court was approached by Musharraf’s legal team to be allowed to see their client, a right denied for the last 3-4 days. The bench directed the relevant authorities to allow such a meeting. Another dramatic development ensued when Musharraf’s lawyers told the SC that Musharraf’s mother was critically ill in Dubai and he wished to travel to be by her side. Since his name is on the exit control list, only the court could provide relief in this regard. The court in response asked for a written request to this effect and it would then consider it. The courtroom drama aside, ex-generals have weighed in with their concern if not outrage at the humiliating treatment being meted out to a former COAS, especially at the hands of lawyers opposed to Musharraf. They said the military was watching the situation closely and appealed to COAS General Kiyani to intervene and save Musharraf from further humiliation, otherwise Musharraf’s supporters would themselves rescue him from the unwanted attentions of the militant lawyers. The recognition of necessity by the caretaker government that it neither has the mandate, time or capability to touch the hot potato of a treason trial against Musharraf is worthy of some sympathy. The ex-servicemen’s take on the situation is much more ominous, albeit not unexpected. The historic first of an ex-COAS and president being dragged through the courts offends the traditional dominance of the military in Pakistan’s public life. The developments inside and outside the court also point to a simple fact: fulminations against Musharraf and the desire to see him brought to justice aside, the requisite courage and will to prosecute a dictator to the full extent of the law is still a distant dream in Pakistan.