The PPP government that came to power after the 2008 elections took oath from Musharraf who was still the president.The verdict of a special court against former president Pervez Musharraf is a landmark development in many ways.Interestingly, the former military ruler was tried not for his ‘original sin’ of staging a coup against an elected government, but for imposing emergency and holding the Constitution in abeyance in 2007. In a dramatic move last month, it Raw Materials lled out its team of prosecutors and asked the court to halt the trial, saying the case against the former military leader was weak. The verdict sends a strong message to potential adventurists. He has been out of the country for the past several years and is hospitalised for serious health problems. Musharraf was indicted in 2014 for imposing a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007.

By arrangement with Dawn. Musharraf is required to be present in the country to file an appeal against his conviction but his return is improbable. A court has ordered the confiscation of all his properties and frozen his bank accounts.Gen Musharraf took power on Oct 12, 1999, in a coup that ousted Nawaz Sharif’s government. Musharraf has also been implicated in other cases including the Lal Masjid operation. Despite repeated summons, Musharraf failed to appear before the court. The court declared him an absconder. There had been strong apprehension that the trial would never reach its conclusion because of reported resistance from the military.Musharraf’s treason trial had become an explosive political issue and had also been a cause of tension between the military and the government of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The death sentence may not be implemented but the court ruling carries far-reaching political implications. There’s certainly a revenge aspect to the decision to initiate the treason trial, though the government maintained that it only complied with the Supreme Court ruling.Significantly, the Musharraf verdict came a day after the Supreme Court released its full judgement in army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa’s extension case. The court verdict has worsened the government’s predicament.  

Interestingly, the treason case was filed more than five years after Musharraf’s exit that came reportedly after a deal brokered by the US guaranteeing indemnity to the former president. The ambassador stressed that only the promise of indemnity had persuaded Musharraf to step down as president.It was evident that the PTI government had not been interested in pursuing the treason case.When a former military ruler is convicted and handed the death sentence in a country which has been under dictatorships for the better part of its existence, it is no less than history being made. The military was surely not happy with its former chief being put in the dock on treason charges, and predictably his conviction has provoked a robust reaction from the military leadership that had rejected the court order. He left the country in March 2016. It is not the end of the game yet.Many Pakistani political leaders have faced treason charges, but this is the first time a former head of state has been convicted under Article 6 of the Constitution.  

For him, it seemed to be an opportunity to settle scores with a man who not only deposed him but also put him on trial for sedition. The two court orders demonstrate an unprecedented assertion of authority by the country’s superior judiciary. It remains to be seen whether it challenges Musharraf’s conviction in the Supreme Court. This is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a former military chief has been declared guilty of high treason for suspending the country’s Constitution.  

The main argument for not charging Musharraf over the coup was that the Supreme Court and parliament indemnified his action.But the situation changed after the return to power of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister.In a cable sent to Washington and leaked by WikiLeaks, the then American ambassador Anne Patterson reported that Asif Zardari had told her that he was committed to giving indemnity to Musharraf. That has led to a new conflict between the military and the judiciary that in turn could worsen the political crisis. He stepped down as president in August 2008 under the threat of impeachment by the elected civilian government installed after the general elections that year. It has challenged the military’s predominance and demonstrates the growing assertiveness of the judiciary. Many legal experts question whether the 2007 action alone provided sufficient grounds for his conviction under Article 6, ignoring the original takeover.