Judicial bombshell

Have we really become so brutalised as a society that we can order the corpse of a convict who dies before he is executed to be dragged to a public square and strung up for three days?

The detailed verdict issued by a special court in the high treason case against former army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf was nothing short of a judicial bombshell. The verdict’s tone was horrifying in places — and indicated a troubling descent into medievalism. Two of the three judges on the special court bench had found Mr Musharraf guilty and sentenced him to death.

One of the two judges, Justice Waqar Seth spelt out the graphic punishment. It is to be hoped that this minority view does not obscure the underlying significance of the judgement — ie it is for the first time in this country that a former army chief has been found guilty of high treason. Critically, the 2-1 verdict had raised some other serious constitutional questions, including on the role of those who had aided Mr Musharraf in his Nov 3, 2007, misadventure. One hopes that the tone of the judgement will not obscure these relevant aspects.

In reaction the DG ISPR criticised the verdict’s language, saying that it went against ‘humanity and religion’.

The government has decided to approach the Supreme Judicial Council for the removal of Justice Seth on the grounds that he is ‘unfit’ to be a judge, and is to separately file an appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court. That is its right. Taking their cue from a meeting between the prime minister and the incumbent army chief, both the ISPR and the government’s ministers have weighed in on the matter.

In this troubling atmosphere, it is time for all institutions to take a step back in order to avoid a head-on collision. The government will be pursuing the matter legally, which is the correct thing to do. The prime minister’s advice of restraint is timely and must be followed, instead of government ministers and institutions targeting the judiciary that safeguards the Constitution.

The judgement, notwithstanding its disturbing language in places, forms the basis for a frank and robust debate on the direction in which Pakistani democracy is headed and on whether there is a need for course correction.

Equally important is a discussion on Pakistani society and how it can avoid the minefields of the tribal, anachronistic mores that lie in its path to progress. Without introspection, the country will continue to slide towards anarchy, a situation that anti-state elements will be only to keen to exploit.