WHEN a former military ruler is put in the dock for treason in a country which has been under dictatorships for the most part of its existence, it is no less than history being made. The trial of retired Gen Pervez Musharraf is a landmark development in many ways.

Many Pakistani political leaders faced treason charges, but it is for the first time that a former head of state is being tried under Article 6 of the Constitution. The former military strongman is expected to be indicted by a special tribunal comprising three high court judges on Jan 1, 2014.

This case has all the ingredients of high drama with far-reaching political consequences. The trial of a former army chief in a country where the military remains a formidable force casting its shadow over politics may have serious ramifications.

For Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, it may be an opportunity to settle scores with a man who not only deposed him but also put him on trial for sedition. There’s certainly a revenge aspect to the decision to initiate the treason trial, though the government maintains it only complied with the Supreme Court ruling.

Some opposition leaders have also accused the government of using the trial to divert public attention from its failure to address other key issues.

But Musharraf’s aides are confident the trial will collapse. “He has not committed any treason and the case will fall apart if the trial is fair and unbiased,” says retired Maj Gen Rashid Qureshi, a long-time associate of the former president.

A formidable defence team headed by the crafty Sharifuddin Pirzada, an old hand at constitutional law, could complicate things for the prosecution. Some observers believe the trial may even drag on to Musharraf’s advantage.

The Islamabad High Court has already dismissed the objection raised by the defence on the legality of the tribunal and the plea that the case be shifted to a military court. But the issue of the trial’s constitutional validity is likely to dominate the proceedings. The former general is being tried not for his original sin of staging a coup against an elected government but for his Nov 3, 2007 action of imposing emergency and holding the Constitution in abeyance.

“Pro-prosecution bias and being selective about the incident could be a strong argument for the defence,” maintains a senior constitutional lawyer. This appears to be the main point Musharraf’s lawyers will take up.

The main argument for not charging Musharraf for the Oct 12, 1999 coup is that his action was indemnified by the Supreme Court and parliament. But the question is whether the 2007 action alone provides sufficient ground for his trial under Article 6, ignoring the original takeover.

Some senior lawyers argue that the term ‘abeyance’ was added to Article 6 by the 18th Amendment and thus cannot be applied retrospectively. Before the amendment, Article 6 mentioned only the terms ‘abrogation’ and ‘subversion’ of the Constitution.

They argue there was no point in introducing the word ‘abeyance’ in Article 6 as it was already covered by ‘subversion’, and that the amendment has inadvertently benefited Musharraf. “The element of surprise will be our major weapon in the trial,” says Ahmed Raza Kasuri, a member of the defence team.

Since ending his self-imposed exile and returning home earlier this year, Musharraf has been implicated in multiple murder cases. But the treason trial will be his most serious test.

Musharraf may appear relaxed, but things can go wrong. “He returned to the country of his own will and is mentally prepared to face any situation,” said Qureshi.

Breaking his silence, Musharraf recently gave interviews to a couple of private television channels appearing his usual confident self.

But what could be the worst scenario? Conviction and the death sentence? Doubtful. The humiliation of their former chief has already perturbed the military and many observers believe that conviction could result in a strong reaction by the army. The military leadership seems to have distanced itself from the trial. But the manner in which the trial proceeds may change the dynamics. A prolonged trial could generate immense challenges for the already fragile political structure.

The writer is a political and security analyst.