Hijacking from the Ground
The Bizarre Story of PK 805
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
Ever since independence (1947), military interventions have taken place with depressing regularity in Pakistan. After each coup, the overthrown political leadership is accused of mismanagement, dishonesty and poor governance. When in power, the military’s favourite pastime is to institute corruption and criminal cases against politicians. Regrettably, the Supreme and High Courts have tended to promptly ratify all coups d’état under the doctrine of necessity.
On 12 October, 1999 Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif dismissed Army Chief General Pervaiz Musharraf, while the latter was on his way back to Pakistan from Sri Lanka. A section of the army, loyal to Musharraf, then overthrew the civilian government and seized power. General Musharraf was expected to adopt the well honed strategies of his infamous predecessors Generals Ayub Khan (1958), Yahya Khan (1969) and Zia ul Haq (1977). The last named had tried then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for murder and hanged him in 1979. Musharraf and his advisors in the newly established National Security Council now looked for a way to permanently do away with Nawaz Sharif.
Advised by a disreputable lawyer of Karachi, who had a track record of “assisting” every military coup leader since independence, General Musharraf charged Nawaz Sharif with “hijacking” the Pakistan International Airlines flight (PK 805) on which he was returning home. It needed an evil genius to contrive a charge of hijacking a commercial aircraft from the ground. Such a person was obviously confident that the courts in Pakistan could be browbeaten into upholding such a ludicrous charge.
It is true that Nawaz Sharif had ordered the Civil Aviation Authority to initially deny landing rights to PK 805 at Karachi. The Prime Minister relented soon afterwards when the pilot of PK 805 reported that he was running short of fuel. PK 805 was then cleared for landing at Nawabshah, the designated alternative of Karachi. For thirty eight minutes more, PK 805 remained airborne. Musharraf was in the cockpit, reluctant to land before he was absolutely sure that the coup had succeeded. Despite a reported fuel shortage, the pilot had not declared an emergency. Right through this episode, Nawaz Sharif was in Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, over a thousand kilometres away.
Nawaz Sharif, his brother Shahbaz Sharif who was Chief Minister of the province of Punjab, some close associates and the author, who at that time was the Director General, Civil Aviation Authority were arrested and sent up for trial before an Anti Terrorism Court in Karachi. The trial was “supervised” from behind the scenes by a serving Major General of the Army.
Absurd as it may seem, a person who was Prime Minister a few days earlier was now produced as an accused before an Anti Terrorist Court. When Musharraf and his junta discovered that hijacking was not an offence triable by such a Court, the law was amended retrospectively and hijacking was added to the schedule of offences.
At the trial both the Prosecution and Defence went off at a tangent. The State accused Nawaz Sharif of hijacking an aircraft, despite the fact that he was not on board. This was in utter violation of International Law on the subject. In clear violation of the Vienna Convention of which Pakistan is a signatory, the trial judge did not take into account three Conventions on Hijacking that Pakistan had ratified. Nawaz Sharif meanwhile had his own problems. His legal team developed differences over the strategy to be adopted. Swayed by the advice of one group and then the other, Nawaz took diametrically opposite positions in the trial and appellate courts. In the trial court, he denied having ordered a diversion of PK 805, but in the appellate court he admitted having done so, arguing (rightly) that he was authorised to do so under the law.
The State did nothing to protect civilian functionaries, caught in the crossfire between the Prime Minister and his Army Chief, from victimisation. Civilian employees of the Civil Aviation Authority were subjected to third degree methods and kept in solitary confinement. They were told in unambiguous terms that they would have to depose against the former Prime Minister or else. In sharp contrast, not a single officer of the armed forces was questioned for violating the Civil Aviation Ordinances 1960 and 1982.
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
Gen Musharraf’s coup in 1999 was the military’s fourth in Pakistan’s sixty years of independence. Like his martial predecessors, Musharraf tried to purge the political leadership by instituting false cases against it. While earlier Bonapartists Ayub, Yahya and Zia ul Haq had preferred to tread the beaten path by charging politicians with murder, corruption and other such charges, Musharraf turned out to be more innovative. His junta accused the ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of “Hijacking” the flight on which Musharraf was returning to Pakistan from Sri Lanka. What made the whole thing rather farcical and absurd was that Sharif is supposed to have done this sitting in his office in Islamabad over a thousand kilometres away.
Public opinion in Pakistan was sharply divided when Nawaz’s case came up for trial. His critics depicted him as a despotic ‘democrat’ who had tried to kill the Army Chief in mid flight. His supporters, equally vehemently asserted that Nawaz had been framed. The struggle became so intensely political that vital and critical legal issues receded into the background. Interested only in scoring points and making accusations, counsel on both sides tended to focus only on the political dimensions of the case. While there is no denying the fact that tussles between democratically elected leaders and ambitious Generals are commonplace in the Third World, there is always the fond hope that the judicial process would steer away from such pressures and concentrate on the law. Predictably, the judiciary of the Musharraf era refused to take an independent position.
This book seeks to shift the spotlight back to the law, in an effort to ascertain whether Nawaz Sharif was guilty of conspiracy to hijack a commercial flight, and that too from the ground.
About the Author
Aminullah Chaudry joined the Civil Service of Pakistan in 1967. In 1998, he was appointed Director General, Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan and in early 1999, Secretary Aviation, Government of Pakistan. He was serving in these positions at the time of the coup of 12 October, 1999 which brought Chief of Army Staff Gen Pervaiz Musharraf into power.
Earlier the same afternoon, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had dismissed Musharraf, away on a visit to Sri Lanka, and replaced him with Gen Ziauddin. When the latter was not allowed to assume command by a section of the army, he turned to Nawaz Sharif for help. The Prime Minister then ordered Aminullah Chaudry to divert PK 805, the flight on which Musharraf was returning home, away from Karachi and preferably out of the country. As the Civil Aviation Ordinance permitted the Prime Minister to divert any commercial flight from its specified route, and the Director General to close down any airport, Aminullah denied the use of Karachi and its designated alternative Nawabshah to PK 805. When the pilot of PK 805 informed the tower that he was running short of fuel, he was cleared to land at Nawabshah. Before he could do this, the army stormed the control tower in Quaid-e Azam International Airport and ordered PK 805 to return to Karachi. Despite this, Musharraf, now in the cockpit of PK 805, remained airborne for another thirty eight minutes until he was sure that the army had deposed Nawaz Sharif.
Although only a diversion was ordered, Nawaz Sharif and six others were charged with hijacking PK 805. Working under the shadow of Musharraf’s autocratic regime, the Courts convicted Nawaz Sharif. Aminullah Chaudry was also arrested, kept in solitary confinement, and forced to testify against Sharif.
Having witnessed a farcical trial at first hand, Aminullah is one person who can give a firsthand account of a grossly flawed judicial process. He shows how the legal process was distorted and the fundamentals of Aviation Law disregarded.