In May 2011, a Rawalpindi court declared former military ruler Pervez Musharraf a Proclaimed Offender in the Benazir Bhutto assassination case.

In October 2011, a Quetta court issued an arrest warrant for Pervez Musharraf over the killing of Akbar Bugti.

Hardly something to strike fear in the heart of a former commando.

As Musharraf muses over his homecoming date, Interior minister Rehman Malik has attempted to deter him from returning with the threat of a ‘possible arrest’. Sindh Home Minister Manzoor Wassan has been more direct, stating that Musharraf will be arrested from the airport when he returns.

Even if he is jailed on arrival, there is a good chance he would be released. Mrs Musharraf has already challenged the court order declaring him a proclaimed offender.

One gets the feeling that Musharraf is not losing any sleep over these threats.

In fact, in a sign of the political savvy he has acquired in his exile years, he has declared that the cases against him don’t “stand on any solid legs at all.” He also added that “these are politicised cases and I have no responsibility in the two major cases.”

This rhetoric rings a bell. Both the PPP and PML (N) have consistently dismissed all cases against them as being political in nature. Not only have these parties thrived, they have also entered the corridors of power. In mimicking their rhetoric, Musharraf has taken a leaf out of their book. Perhaps he is holding out hope to mirror their political fortunes as well.

Government officials whose views are of any consequence at all seem to be conveniently ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room: Article 6. Musharraf suspended the constitution twice; and even though he got legal cover for his first indiscretion, the second offence has been conveniently deposited in the dustbin of history.

All this despite the fact that in July 2009, the Supreme Court had declared Musharraf’s Proclamation of Emergency (issued November 3. 2007) as being “un-constitutional, ultra-vires of the Constitution and consequently being illegal.” Mindful of the limits of its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court turned down a request to try Musharraf for treason, as the responsibility lies with parliament to decide whether to lay such charges.

In the presence of the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment, one wonders why the government does not develop a consensus to hold Musharraf to account for his actions in the fateful fall of 2007. Musharraf himself has admitted to the fact that his act was unconstitutional. In an interview with the BBC in November 2007, he is quoted as saying:

“Have I done anything constitutionally illegal? Yes, I did it on 3 November.”

The disturbing reality is that the Pakistani state has degenerated to the point that the power brokers use the law only to settle scores. But even if one assumes that the powers-that-be are adopting such a diabolical approach, it still stands to reason that one should (mis)use the law which gives the best chance to pin down one’s opponent. In the light of the July 2009 judgment and Musharraf’s statement quoted above, the government’s reluctance to initiate Article 6 proceedings against him defies logic.

Perhaps there is more to this saga than meets the eye. Or maybe we are seeing a manifestation of a theory put forth by Benjamin Franklin when he said: “Laws too gentle, are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.”

Democracy is not a guarantee for justice nor is it a substitute for it. But we have been told that ‘democracy is the best revenge’. This is little solace for the masses who have had revenge exacted on them for crimes unknown, but I digress.

Then again, there are nations who don’t even have this opportunity afforded to them. In the case of Musharraf, it seems like his fate will have to be decided by the people. With everything else that is brewing, the mother of all elections is looming on the horizon.