Para 66 kerfuffle.

Byline: Abbas Nasir

WITH our exemplary commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution, the outrage caused by what must now be the most well-known paragraph ever written in our judicial history could have been predicted.

The shock, horror and disgust that was expressed was understandable in a country brutalised by years of state patronage to bigots and those who wish to drag Pakistan back to the medieval times. Among Para 66 critics were some of the country's leading liberals.

The disdain for the para by these liberals, among them lawyers, journalists, academics, was predictable too as they have spoken out against each breach of a citizen's fundamental rights or brazen disregard for the Constitution, law or elected institutions and promulgation of medieval laws.

To an extent I'd include myself among such objectors to the para. But I will stop way short of saying para 66 has overshadowed and nullified the special court judgement in the Pervez Musharraf high treason trial for his actions on Nov 3, 2007.

Anybody believing that has to read lawyer-broadcaster Babar Sattar's piece titled Rule of law or force? in The News (Dec 21). Babar's legal nous is public knowledge and I admire the brilliant man's ability to be clinical and incisive.

In a mere 1,000 words, he has peeled away the layers of both deliberate obfuscation and well-meaning concern to bare the heart of the matter. He described para 66 as an own goal but then demolished each self-serving argument against the former military ruler's conviction.

Let me unashamedly state I am opposed to the death penalty on a number of grounds: it may be inhumane; its deterrent value is highly overrated and is questionable. Equally, in case of a miscarriage of justice no redress is possible.

So, for me, the thought of a dead convict's corpse being dragged through the streets and being hanged in a public square is too horrible a spectacle to even picture let alone witness in real life. That said the para, being minority opinion, is not an enforceable or operational part of the verdict.

Those who can't or won't see the woods for the trees will, I fear, go round in circles given the volume of sponsored disinformation and obfuscation that is being blasted on the electronic media these days. This would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.

Remember the day the verdict was announced? There was no offending para 66 in the public domain till 24 hours later. Even then the ISPR statement expressed 'pain and anguish'...