Trial for All

Trial for All

The government has initiated the High treason case against the former dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf under the article 6 of Pakistani Constitution. The opposition parties in the Parliament have also endorsed Nawaz Sharif’s decision to try Musharraf and demanded to have dictator’s photographs removed from government buildings.


Scores of frightened politicians and bureaucrats have expressed fear that the case in question may take a lid off the Pandora’s Box because if the government goes for a complete trial, it would also lead to disclosure of many hidden faces, thus, compounding the problems of the newly elected government along with former President.


According to the article 6 of the constitution of Pakistan, the traitor and the abettors are equal in the eye of law.


One wonders that when Musharraf was in the air in a plane on October 12, 1999, waiting for a ground permission to land at Karachi airport, so how he could impose a Marshal Law single handedly. It makes sense to conclude that some Tom, Dick and Harry must have played a role as collaborators.


It must be remembered that Musharraf’s Marshal Law was not the only one in the history of Pakistan. This country had witnessed several such adventures by former Generals including Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia ul Haq, so the question is: Would they also be put to a similar trial? If we were to believe that such action would be taken then perhaps that would be tantamount to living in fool’s paradise.


First time in the history of Pakistan, the Pakistan Peoples’ Party government completed its five-year tenure and the country witnessed the democratic transition of power. We must also not forget that as result of the 18th amendment the newly elected government has been enjoying full powers from the first day of taking the helm. Army has been confined to its constitutional limits and it is also a fact that this has played a pivotal role towards promoting the democracy.


Some circles are portraying Musharraf’s trial as an action or vendetta against a particular institution, warning that this kind of attitude may have a negative impact on the whole process of accountability.


According to a British daily, there is a possibility that arrangements may be put in place for giving  the former dictator Pervez Musharraf  a safe exit out of the country.


However, only time will tell how the events unfold in the days to come.

Roohan Ahmed

A researcher at the online editorial desk of The News

  • Anonymous

    One needs to differentiate between the institution and the man, be it the army, supreme court or the parliament. And just because the law has not been implemented in the past us no justification for not doing it now. Many murders have never been prosecuted before, perhaps we should let all murders go too because is hard work dealing with them!

    Why do you guys complain when a well connected party escapes prosecution on some pretext or another? Perhaps that is why the Pakistanis get in trouble – the double standards they exhibit in their thinking!

  • M.Saeed

    Now, let me ask a simple question. Is it not high-treason to deface (self-serving amendments) the sacred Constitution through criminal parliamentarians gathered by employing all possible illegal means and criminal devices (fake credentials) in the name of “people’s representatives”?

  • excalibur

    Holding the Constitution in ABEYANCE is not a cognizable offence under the original Article 6 .TO SUBVERT AND ABROGATE are

    With a malafide intention ABEYANCE was sneaked in under the 18th Amendment as recent as 2010 with the aim of targeting Musharraf

  • Anonymous

    Curious that Pakistani educated class is less fearful of the law of the land but more fearful of a possible military reaction to a trial of one of their ex generals. They provide mitigation or put an argument for this trial being conditional upon previous usurpers being put on trial too. A question to them – if their nearest and dearest is mauled by a gang and only a single perpetrator is caught, will they say ‘we would rather wait for all to be caught before we try the one we already have’?!

    Well one of the gang who mauled the mother nation is in custody now whilst the preparation for hauling the rest can proceed as necessary. Why should his trial not proceed because the others have not yet been caught out. A gang of killers can each blame the other, which does not lessen or mitigate their own part in the killing.

    Unless fear of the consqunces of breaking the law takes priority over the self-interest or fear of perceived backlash from any powerful group, there will not be a stable society.

  • Anonymous

    Saani Sb

    General Musharraf is more likely to get a few death sentences Kargil ever turns up in an impartial inquiry. Because of his adventure, a huge number of soldiers’ lives were lost and we don’t even have th precise number todate.

    By all mean try all dictators, but for that one has to start somewhere without putting condions on which should be first – considering the one dictator alive is in custody, why not start with him and work back through history?!