It would be difficult to predict the outcome of the treason trial instituted against Pakistan’s former strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf as it is still shrouded in mystery. However, the trial has stirred a heated debate in the country over the impact of this trial.

Many say that the trial can open a Pandora’s box or will reflect poorly on the government of Nawaz Sharif. The masses are keen to know as to why the country’s highest judicial forum, the Supreme Court, instead of nominating a three-member bench of judges for holding the trial, has thrown the ball back in the government’s court.

Under the decades-old practice, the executive requests the apex court to nominate judges for a probe into sensitive issues. The government had adopted the same course of action by forwarding five names — decided by the provincial high courts — to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who was supposed to shortlist three from the list.

However, in a surprise move — for which no explanation has so far been offered — the chief justice sent the file back to the government allowing it to choose judges itself.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Law and Justice selected Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Tahira Safdr, and Justice Yawar Ali from Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab high courts respectively.

The selection showed that smaller provinces of the KPK and one in the tribal belt, was considered unworthy for the job.

One controversy was already brewing over the selection of the judicial bench; another issue came to the fore. Prominent lawyer and former attorney-general Anwar Mansoor pointed out that Musharraf was not being tried for overthrowing an elected government in 1999. According to Mansoor, Musharraf is being tried for dismissing the superior court judges in 2007.

It seems that Chief Justice Chaudhry, who had legitimized Musharraf’s coup in 1999, wanted to stay away from the case so as to avoid problems in future.

PPP’s Syed Khurshid Shah, Opposition leader in the National Assembly, has demanded that the trial’s scope should be extended to the original coup against Nawaz Sharif’s previous government, as the removal of judges from service on Nov. 3, 2007, was just a small chapter of a massive thriller, written in 1999. He avoided answering questions as to why did his own PPP-led government did not take any action during its recently concluded five-year term.

There are rumors doing the rounds that Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his officers are opposed to trying their former chief. It is said that the army had been trying to protect Musharraf and did not allow the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to probe him.

On Wednesday, Kayani reportedly presided over a key commanders’ conference in Rawalpindi, which has fueled fears that the army may be making a move to stop the government from taking any action against Musharraf.

Another prominent lawyer, Babar Sattar, expressed his fears that perhaps Sharif is set to take revenge for what Musharraf did to him.

A former army general and analyst, Talat Masood, says the whole issue will open up “a can of worms.”

The common man and leading journalists are of the opinion that the case is bound to entail risks for key persons in the army and the judiciary, which in turn will expose the country to a new kind of turmoil.

Analysts argue that the trial is ill timed as Sharif’s government is already faced with economic issues and terrorism. They recalled that Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar had announced the trial when Sharif was touring Sri Lanka and Thailand. They believe that the sudden announcement was aimed at diverting attention from the gruesome incident that had taken place in Rawalpindi on the 10th day of Muharram.

If Musharraf submits a list of defense witnesses, which may include top army generals and calls even the former judges, justifying his coup in 1999 through a court judgment, then the matter will take a new turn.

The court is ready to charge him on the basis of evidence reportedly collected by the federal investigators, but whether these evidence will hold grounds during debate by rival lawyers in the three-judge court, remains to be seen. Agreement, however, is that the court may entangle itself on issues which will be difficult to resolve. The trial, therefore, may backfire, which would be a major source of embarrassment for Sharif.