The verdict and after

It is unfortunate that a seemingly appropriate verdict of a special court comprising judges of three high courts that held former army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf guilty of treason should leave room for controversy. The language used in the detailed order released on Thursday seemed intemperate in places, but most shocking was the part, written by the presiding judge, chief justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) Waqar Ahmed Seth, in paragraph 66, directing the law enforcement agencies to "ensure that the punishment [death sentence] is inflicted as per law and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk [in front of the Parliament House] Islamabad, Pakistan, and be hanged for three days." Evocative of medieval era punishments, it is an outrage against civilized sensibilities at a time most other countries have abolished capital punishment or introduced moratorium. Thankfully, though, it's a minority view, the other two judges did not concur on it.

Both the government and the Army have reacted angrily to the judgment. Law Minister Farogh Naseem has said based on a precedent set in a case by the then Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry that "incompetence is a ground of misconduct" the government intends to file a reference against the President of Special Court. Giving the Army's response, ISPR spokesman Maj-Gen Asif Ghafoor described the verdict, especially its language, as being "against humanity, religion, culture and our values." Which is quite understandable.

Pervez Musharraf has been held to account under Article 6 of the Constitution. Second and no less important, it is about actions he ostensibly took as an individual; the court has not implicated the army as an institution or undermined its dignity in any way. No one should try and undermine the authority of courts as some elements have been doing taking a cue from the government and army's stance. Most shameful was a protest demonstration organized and led by Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University upon the announcement of the short order. It surely is not the business of university managements and staff to get involved in such affairs.

Of course, anyone can criticize the judgment in this or any other case. But targeting the judiciary as an institution is unacceptable. In the event its verdict does not sit well with the sensitivities of a group of people or an organization the law provides for procedures and proper course to challenge its flaws. The right way forward for the government and others is to go into appeal in the Supreme Court. All must keep their cool, letting the law take its course without fear or favour.