Why former Pakistan military chief Musharraf's death penalty could spell trouble

Editor's note: Azhar Azam works in a private organization as a market and business analyst and writes about geopolitical issues and regional conflicts. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On Tuesday, three judges at a special court in Islamabad, Pakistan, sentenced former Pakistan President and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Pervez Musharraf to death.

He had been on trial for a high treason case over imposing a state of emergency in 2007 that is considered an abrogation of the country's constitution, embodying maximum punishment unless the act is indemnified by parliament.

Ailing Musharraf rejected the charges outright. Days before the judgment, he characterized the treason case "baseless" and asserted, "I have served my country for 10 years. I have fought for my country. This [treason] is the case in which I have not been heard and I have been victimized."

From 2008 onward, the former military ruler was not destined to get ratification from the leading political parties, Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) or PMLN and Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which had a majority in parliament and opposed him.

Although the PPP did not pursue the case against Musharraf following its rise to power during and after the ex-military leader's tenure, ostensibly over the larger gains for its leaders from the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) – nevertheless it prevented giving Musharraf's act a legislative cover.

Given that clause 2A of the enforced Article 6 restricts Pakistan's top courts, including High Courts and the Supreme Court, from validating the "act of high treason," Musharraf was never going to get a relief on the basis of prevailing laws in the country.

In addition, since any constitutional amendment requires at least a two-thirds majority, he would not able to get an endorsement for his act in the near future even if the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) wanted to do so over its small lead in the National Assembly and Senate.

Apart from the technically "political" case, there is no corruption or other tangible petition pending against the former army chief in the courts. In this background, Article 6 is perceived to be a political farce to victimize Musharraf in some circles of Pakistan while his fellow politicians are enjoying leading roles in all the political parties and government. Musharraf can challenge the court decision in the higher courts.

In the utterly puzzling turmoil, the split verdict (2-1) highlighted a revamped and brighter image of Pakistan's institutions that are under increased international criticism for working under military pressure.

The decision vehemently downplays western propaganda about army dominance in Pakistan and spells out that the institutions in the country are strengthening with the passage of time.

Islamabad generally has had a vulnerable economy and several political brawls for many years. It is a blunt truth that if any institution has exceptionally served the grander strategic national and regional interests of the country, this is without doubt the Pakistan armed forces.

With the tailor-made defense equipment from its all-weather friend Beijing, the battle-hardened army not only cleansed Pakistan from the menace of terrorism, but also facilitated the critical peace talks between Washington and Afghan Taliban.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, Pakistan strongly backed the US war on terror in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, General Musharraf was Pakistan's army chief and president when 9/11 rocked the US Under his control, Islamabad played a key role in the world's campaign of ending terrorism once for all.

Now with the former army chief's death penalty, Pakistan could face some extensive strategic implications in the region. The global media, mainly US broadcasting outlets, would certainly take the opportunity to pale the achievements of the Pakistan armed forces by exploiting its role in the domestic politics.

It would additionally demoralize the Pakistan army that has lost thousands of troops in the war on terror and has long been assisting peace in the region. It must be excruciating for the Pakistan military to be handed a capital decree to its former army chief over treachery, given that he led the country's most-revered organization for about nine years.

Soon after the verdict, the Pakistan army expressed great resentment over the court decision. In its press release, the military's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said that the decision "has been received with lot of pain and anguish by rank and file of Pakistan Armed Forces," which denied the right of self-defense to its former head.

At a time when all the global powers including China, Russia and the United States are pursuing a path of political dialogue with the Afghan Taliban and China and Pakistan are making collective efforts for ensuring peace and sustainable economic development in Afghanistan – aggravation in the ranks of Pakistan army over its former head's capital punishment cannot be overlooked.

The growing antipathies could divert the Pakistan armed forces' concentration from peace and stability in the region to disproportionately occupying itself with domestic issues. Most importantly, this could be an opportunity for global subversive elements and bottled-up terrorists to re-launch their disruptive activities more actively in region and specifically in Pakistan, whose economy has just started to move ahead on the back of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.