The government, the judiciary and the army at crossroads
Now
it is official – the amount disbursed by the omnipresent establishment
to politicians for creation of an anti-PPP alliance, the Islami Jamhoori
Ittehad (IJI), to effectively rig the 1990 general elections. The names
given in the list provided by one of the ring leaders, the then ISI
Chief Lt General Asad Durrani, to the Supreme Court in the Asghar Khan
case read like the ‘who is who’ list of politicians intriguing against
the PPP at the time.
Those mentioned in the detailed judgment of the apex court include such luminaries as Pir Pagara, Nawaz Sharif, Mohammad Khan Junejo, Abida Hussain, Mustafa Khar, Mustafa Jatoi, Mir Afzal and a number of pro-General Zia-ul-Haq journalists. None of the politicians, with the honourable exception of Abida Hussain, has admitted to their crime.
The apex court has ordered legal proceedings against the politicians who received the tainted money. It has directed the Federal investigation agency (FIA) to conduct a transparent investigation against the recipients. Against those whom there was sufficient evidence, the court has ordered trial according to law.
The real tricky part is not proceeding against the recipients but the conspirators. The ringleader is supposedly the late Ghulam Ishaq Khan who, as chairman Senate, was appointed president after Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash on 6 August, 1988. This was not without the blessings of General Mirza Aslam Beg who at the same time being VCOAS chose to become the COAS.
Aslam Beg, in several television interviews after the short verdict of the Supreme Court, has denied any knowledge of the whole conspiracy, glibly claiming that the ISI was directly under GIK and did not report to him.
The maverick former COAS has washed his hands of the whole affair by claiming that he learnt about the scandal four years after his retirement. What a lie! No one in his right mind would believe that the all powerful army chief of the time was timidly taking orders from a president virtually appointed by him.
The apex court in its detailed judgment has, however, clearly stated that both Asad Durrani and Aslam Beg brought a bad name to Pakistan and its armed forces as well as secret agencies in the eyes of the nation. Not buying Beg’s weak defence for his unlawful behaviour, the apex court clearly states that the soldier is clearly liable under the constitution if he violates his oath.
The operative part of the verdict is rather ominous and clearly puts the federal government on the spot. It states: notwithstanding that they (Beg and Asad Durrani) may have retired from service, the federal government shall take necessary steps under the constitution and law against them.
There are only two ways Beg and Durrani can be proceeded against. The obvious is that they should be tried under Article 6 of the constitution for committing high treason by violating and subverting it. This route is slippery and fraught with minefields for an incipient and docile civilian setup.
President Zardari till now has been careful not to alienate the army. That is why he has survived his near full term. In a culture where a usurper like Musharraf was given a guard of honour when he left the country for permanent exile, it is unlikely that the military hierarchy would allow trial of their former colleagues by civilians.
Another manner the former generals could be tried is by initiating court martial proceedings against them. The army chose to court martial retired generals found implicated in the National Logistics Cell (NLC) scam by technically reinstating them.
The problem, however, is that the Chief Justice of Pakistan has ordered the government, not the military, to put those (retired) officers who have brought a bad name to the armed forces and the nation on trial.
In the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s verdict and subsequent “media bashing” of the army, General Kayani has issued a statement which has raised more questions than answering them. The COAS is apparently miffed at perceived attempts to “create a distinction between the army leadership and the troops”.
What is the nature of these attempts, if at all they were made? He has failed to specify. Without naming the apex court, Kayani declared that no individualor institution could define the national interest.
It is obvious that the military leadership is visibly upset at attempts to bring accountability to its doorsteps. Attempts by National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the Supreme Court’s verdict in Asghar Khan case and orders in the missing persons case implicating former generals and intelligence agencies are a first in Pakistan.
Nawaz Sharif has issued a ‘goody goody’ statement on the issue saying that the army was a symbol of the country’s solidarity and hence he wanted to see the institution united and strong. Coming out strong for strengthening the judiciary as well, he was of the opinion that weakening the institution was like turning the country into a lawless jungle.
Unlike General Kayani who did not name the media, Sharif urged the media to paly a positive role. It is obvious that as in the past the effort is to shoot the messenger, rather than judging the message in the context of our unsavoury history.
Nawaz’s own record regarding the three institutions, the army, judiciary and the media, is pretty dismal. As prime minister, he did his best to damage all three. Let us hope that if he ever gets a chance again he would be a reformed person learning from past mistakes.
The Supreme Court’s recent orders in Balochistan target killing case and law and order in Karachi has raised alarm bells in legal circles. It is a dangerous precedent for the Supreme Court to declare, no matter how true, that the government owing to its incompetence has failed to discharge its constitutional obligations.
In a review petition filed in the apex court, the federal government has stated somewhat correctly that the apex court impliedly wants the federal government to either take direct control or impose governor’s rule in Balochistan. According to the plea, this is tantamount to reviving Article 58(2) (b).
After the eighteenth amendment in the constitution, the president can no longer exercise such draconian powers. In any case such a course, if sanctified, could lead to be used against any province, including Punjab, on the pretext of a real or perceived threat to law and order.
The SC verdict in Asghar Khan’s case has serious implications for the presidency as well. The president holding dual office has already been challenged in the Lahore High Court.
The apex court declaring that the office of the president cannot be used for politicking makes things difficult for President Zardari right at elections time.
The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today
0 comments