Musharraf’s death sentence

LAST Tuesday’s judgment by a Special Court in Islamabad, Pakistan, sentencing former military dictator Pervez Musharraf to death in absentia for treason over his 2007 imposition of emergency rule in the country is yet another confirmation of the fact that subversion of the law has dire, even if belated, consequences. The special court found Musharraf guilty of violating Article 6 of the country’s constitution, namely that “any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.” Naturally, the judgment was well received by the civil society in the country, but the emotive language in one of the three judges’ rulings stating that Musharraf be hanged in Islamabad for three days has cast a pall of doubt over the judgment. And the 76-year-old ex-dictator has not failed to toe the path of his predecessors around the world, describing the case against him as “baseless.”

Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup following a disagreement with the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over the army’s involvement in the Kargil conflict in May 1999, was president of the country from 2001 to 2008. In 2007, wanting to extend his tenure illegally, he suspended the constitution and declared an emergency. He enforced a blackout of private media outlets and removed the country’s chief justice. In the ensuing crisis that resulted as lawyers, political opponents and rights activists took to the streets, condemning the draconian move, Musharraf ended the state of emergency and slated elections for early 2008. But following the outrage that greeted the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, one of his main challengers, Musharraf fled Pakistan, but returned in 2013 to contest the next round of elections. But it was Sharifff, the man he had deposed in 1999, that emerged Prime Minister, and subsequently slammed a treason charge on him for the 2007 illegality. Musharraf’s arguments, namely that the case was politically motivated and that the actions he took in 2007 were approved by the government and cabinet, were dismissed by the courts and he was indicted for treason in 2014. Now, following last Tuesday’s judgment, Musharraf has to await the verdict of the Supreme Court, which will determine whether a sitting chief justice can be removed by a president in the manner that he did.

Naturally, the Pakistani military, which has staged three major coups and held the country by the jugular for 33 out of its 72 years of existence, said the verdict on Musharraf was “received with a lot of pain and anguish by the rank and file of the Pakistan Armed Forces.” Appealing to emotions in a statement released on twitter, the military spokesman, Major-General Asif Ghafoor, said: “An ex-Army Chief, Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff Committee and President of Pakistan, who has served the country for over 40 years and fought wars for the defence of the country can surely never be a traitor.” According to him, the legal process “seems to have been ignored” by the Islamabad Special Court.

But even if the sentence is not carried out—there is no formal extradition treaty between Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates where Musharraf has been undergoing medical treatment since 2016, and he has refused to honour court summons despite multiple orders—it carries symbolic power and is a dire warning to the Pakistani military which has maintained its suffocating hold on the country despite the veneer of civil rule. More importantly, it is a warning to dictators and subverters of the law around the world. The verdict is particularly significant given the situation in Africa where a small group of former dictators are now finding out what it means to treat the law with contempt. Yahaya Jammeh, The Gambia’s seemingly almighty ruler who held the country by the jugular for two decades before being forced to relinquish power in 2017, is now in Equitorial Guinea trying to negotiate a peaceful ending for himself, and received the shock of his life last December when the US Department of State barred him and members of his immediate family from entering the United States, hinging its decision on the fact that he fell under a category that applied to foreign government officials believed to have committed “significant corruption or gross violation of human rights.” Former Sudanese dictator, Omar al-Bashir, was recently sentenced to two years in prison for corruption and illegitimate possession of foreign currency, and former Liberian dictator, Charles Taylor, is not exactly having a ball right now.

If the Musharraf case illustrates anything, it is the fact that democracy supervised by the threatening barrel of the gun, the kind that the Muhammadu Buhari administration seeks to impose on Nigeria and Nigerians now with the lawless actions of the security agencies under his watch and the serial disobedience of court orders, cannot endure under a judiciary willing to stand up and be counted. Given the fact that justice in Pakistan has often been circumscribed by the political interests of the military, the verdict on Musharraf is apt. It is treasonable to suspend the constitution in order to perpetuate oneself in power, and we find Musharraf’s argument that his action was approved by members of his cabinet laughable. Illegality can never find a valid basis in executive approval. The sentencing of the former military dictator to death is to be commended, even if he is currently waxing bold instead of being sober because the 2018 elections in Pakistan brought in his ally, Imran Khan, as prime minister, and because President Arif Alvi reserves the right to pardon him provided that he (Alvi) is prepared to face the potential backlash.

If Nigeria’s democracy is to endure, it must learn from Pakistan. The judiciary certainly has to assert its independence by treating the violators of its rulings with the maximum punishment allowed by law. The message must be sent, and in clear terms, that democracy is not all about respecting favourable court judgments; it also involves obeying judgments that run against executive wishes. Where this is not the case, democracy is no more than autocracy robed in civil garb.