Daily Times Editorial 21 December 2019

Devil in the detail

The detailed verdict of the high treason case against former president Pervez Musharraf has triggered feverish discussion about the difference between vengeance and justice after a judge of the special court heading the bench ruled that if the convict dies before being punished, his body should be dragged to D-Chowk and left hanging for three days. The punishment, explained in paragraph 66 of the detailed judgment released on Thursday, has hardly found a buyer across the country. Another judge, who also voted for capital punishment for the former military dictator, disagreed with medieval type justice. Imagine if the punishment is carried out as per paragraph No 66; only Taliban will be happy to see the scene, who not long ago used to hang corpses at crossings in Mingora. That crossing is now called Khooni Chowk. Surely nobody ants D-Chowk in Islamabad to also become Khooni Chowk. The otherwise landmark verdict, which made history by punishing a military dictator for the first time in Pakistan, has lost its spirit just because of its hard-hitting tone and graphic content of paragraph No 66. According to prominent lawyers, the paragraph will benefit Gen Musharraf in the superior court if, rather when, the decision is appealed. The dissenting note has raised several relevant questions such as the definition of high treason and the enforcement of Article 6 of the Constitution given the reality that the crime was committed in 2007 whereas the law was enforced in 2010.

The detailed verdict has not gone well with the army and the government. The government is going to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court besides invoking the Supreme Judicial Council against the judge on the grounds of the grisly punishment. The army spokesperson has once again shown its emotion-filled reaction to the verdict’s semantics and style, dubbing it an insult to the institution and against “humanity and religion”. Many see troubling times ahead but it is hoped that Prime Minister Imran Khan and Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa will take stock of the situation and take measures to deescalate prevailing tensions. The government and Gen Musharraf have legal options open; Gen Musharraf has already stated that he respects the judiciary and has full faith in judges to provide him justice. The prime minister deserves praise for his advice of restraint to all quarters. *

Legacy of Justice Khosa

Retired chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa leaves office with a legacy worth following. In his 11-month tenure as the 26th chief justice of Pakistan, the jurist Khosa did “… what I thought was right and was worth doing.” When he became chief justice on January 18, 2019 after the retirement of Justice Saqib Nisar, there was turmoil in the country because of the court’s super-charged activism. Suo motu ruled most of the court hearing time every day, and those appearing never knew what would happen to them or others. Once Justice Khosa took over a sense of normalcy returned to the court’s proceedings. Instead of Dam funds, the judges would talk of the merits of evidence. Instead of adjournments, cases were speedy concluded. In his full court reference, he rightly said, “I gave my hundred per cent to the job, tried to perform beyond the call of duty, never raised my voice, spoke mainly through my pen, never delayed a judgment unduly and after giving the best years of my life to this public service, I lay down my robes today with a conscience which is clear as crystal.”

During his tenure, Justice Khosa made addressing the huge backlog of the cases his priority. He brought about reforms in the judiciary by launching e-courts, online Supreme Court database, revamping of the Supreme Court website as well as launch of a mobile application. His main focus remained on putting his own house in order instead of taking unnecessary independent notices to fix ills of other departments. When courts embroil the executive in lengthy lawsuits, the end-sufferer is the public. True, judicial activism helps achieve public rights speedily, but it is equally true that judicial restraint helps the executive work independently for public welfare. During his tenure, he desisted from taking suo motu notice on various occasions, perhaps only to encourage people to move courts on the issues of public importance. Yet the manner in which he took up the case pertaining to the chief of army staff’s extension — concluding it within three days — shows Justice Khosa also liked staying in the headlines. *