Role of major characters in imposition of death penalty on Pervez Musharraf
ISLAMABAD: Three major characters played a dominant role in building the high treason case that culminated in the award of unheard of death sentence to Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf for violating the Constitution.
The first and foremost role was played by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as the chief justice of Pakistan when heading the full court ruled on July 31, 2009 that Musharraf violated the Constitution by imposing a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007and be tried for high treason.
Not only then-top judge pronounced the verdict but vigorously pursued later that it is implemented in letter and spirit. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government successfully dragged its feet on enforcing the judgment and did not file the high treason compliant against Musharraf as ordered by the apex court. However, the PPP welcomed the imposition of capital punishment on the former dictator by the special court.
Just a few months after the subsequent Nawaz Sharif government took charge in June 2013, the chief justice started exerting pressure on it to execute the judgment specifically Musharraf’s trial on the high treason charge. However, it was apparently reluctant as it did not want to create a crisis when it had just started its new term.
Iftikhar Chaudhry launched implementation proceedings and at one point finally threatened to initiate contempt of court process against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for continuously disobeying the judicial direction. Ultimately, no option was left for the premier but to order Musharraf’s trial by the federal government.
The prime minister came in the National Assembly and announced the formation of a special court to proceed against the military dictator for high treason. A proper investigation was ordered before submitting the complaint in the tribunal. Thus, the process to try Musharraf was kicked off and the case was filed in the special court on Nov 20, 2013 on behalf of the federal government. So, Nawaz Sharif was one of the principal characters in Musharraf’s conviction for which he had to pay a heavy price later. Before that, he had been dismissed by the dictator in Oct 1999 after imposing martial law and exiled to Saudi Arabia. However, after assuming the office of the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif had declared that he had forgiven and forgotten the past and started a new beginning. However, Iftikhar Chaudhry literally forced him to launch the high treason proceedings against Musharraf.
Apart from a chief justice (Iftikhar Chaudhry), a prime minister (Nawaz Sharif) and a lawyer (Akram Sheikh), two judges of the special courts – Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court (LHC) -, who concluded that Musharraf committed high treason, handed a very bold decision, creating ripples not only in Pakistan but abroad as well. This was the second consecutive day of important judicial decisions.
This was the first time ever in Pakistan’s history since incorporation of Article 6 in the Constitution that high trial case was initiated against the violator of the supreme document and he was convicted.
The third bold fellow, who also played a fundamental role in the case, was Akram Sheikh Advocate, who worked as the special prosecutor, appointed by the federal government. He had to undergo lots of sufferings and losses for forcefully pursuing the complaint in the special court. It was on the basis of his professional contribution that Musharraf has been sentenced.
A few weeks back when it appeared that the special court was about to hand its verdict, the present federal government dissolved the prosecution team headed by Akram Sheikh and hurled allegations over it as well. One of the accusations was that the team misrepresented and spoiled the case. It was only then when this team was detached from the case for the first time since 2013.
Even on the day the judgment was announced, the new prosecution team made its powerful efforts to prolong the case, but the three judges did not oblige. It wanted to implicate three others – then-Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, then-Law Minister Zahid Hamid and then-Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar – in the trial but in vain.
The Supreme Court had held Musharraf solely responsible for violating the Constitution as the proclamation of emergency had been issued under his signatures in which he had admitted that this was his decision in view of the prevailing situation.
When Musharraf ruled, he had a large number of political allies and supporters, who all ran away after his exit never to look back. There was no weighty political voice speaking for him when death sentence was imposed on him by the special court. He left no political legacy to fall back on. The conviction was not less than a bombshell for the seriously ill former ruler.
New history has been written by the special tribunal, which comprised three judges from the Peshawar, Lahore and Sindh high courts. Musharraf has the right of appeal to approach the Supreme Court, which he is going to exercise. However, a question will rise about the “rights” of an absconder because it is often argued that such accused are divested of rights generally available to others.
The trial witnessed a number of judges forming the special court and adjournments during the six years. Different top lawyers represented Musharraf who now occupy top government positions.
The presence of Article 6 in the Constitution has often ridiculed and some have dubbed it as a redundant provision that has never been invoked to punish a dictator. It was significantly changed in the eighteenth amendment.
