When General Pervez Musharraf stepped down as Pakistan's president last year, he looked forward to a quiet life of golf, lucrative speaking engagements, and evenings clinking glasses and tugging on cigars with friends over a game of bridge. He certainly wasn't expecting the summons issued on Wednesday by Pakistan's Supreme Court to appear later this month and defend his November 2007 imposition of a state of emergency — when he sacked the very judges, led by the recently reinstated Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who are now demanding answers from him.
Musharraf's resort to emergency rule was widely derided as a self-serving move by to stave off political challenges. As both army chief and president, Musharraf suspended the constitution, sacked the Supreme Court bench, arrested opposition activists and muzzled sections of the media. Many Pakistanis, including even some of Musharraf's erstwhile allies, have welcomed the court's decision to hold him accountable. But there are also fears, even among some of Musharraf's staunchest opponents, that the move represents an activist judiciary overstepping its role, playing to popular sentiment and positioning itself as an alternative authority to the unpopular civilian government.
Musharraf currently faces no charges, but the court has demanded his presence for an interview that could form the basis of a future prosecution. Leading political figures such as former prime minister Nawaz Sharif — who was overthrown by Gen. Musharraf in a 1999 coup — have long demanded that he be charged with "high treason" for "subverting the constitution." The current summons is not binding, so Musharraf has the option of dispatching a lawyer to speak on his behalf. On Friday, after consulting with former ministers, he has appointed a team of high-powered lawyers to mount a defense. The chances of Musharraf, currently residing in a new apartment in London, appearing for a verbal showdown with Judge Chaudhry are remote, despite his statement in a recent television interview that he was willing to fly back to Pakistan and face his accusers.
Ikram Sehgal, a respected defense analyst who served in the army with Musharraf, welcomed the Supreme Court's move. "Personally I like Mr. Musharraf very much," he says. "But I also believe that everyone should be held to account for their actions. And his actions were blatantly illegal when, as army chief, he imposed a state of emergency. It set a worrying precedent that any future army chief could use to send the judiciary home." Sehgal says stabilizing democracy in Pakistan will require the judiciary to revisit the constitutional tangles left over from the Musharraf years. But Sehgal raises a warning over the current case. "All of the 14 judges involved were affected by Musharraf's actions," he says. "There is an issue of neutrality."
Read Full Article »