Pakistan

ZA Bhutto reference: President has not asked a specific question, says CJ

Court asks Babar Awan to indicate which decision against Bhutto is to be reviewed.

Qaiser Zulfiqar April 15, 2011

ISLAMABAD:

President Asif Ali Zardari has not framed a specific legal question in his reference to the Supreme Court requesting a re-examination of the death sentence against former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, said Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Thursday.

At a preliminary hearing to review the three-decade-old case, the chief justice pointed out that there were three separate court decisions against the former prime minister and President Zardari has not specified which one he would like to have re-examined.

“No one can deny the importance of the case but the question of law is very important,” said the chief justice.

Article 186 of the constitution authorises the president to refer any legal matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion, obliging the apex court to respond. The chief justice acknowledged the court’s constitutional responsibility during the course of the day’s hearings.

Meanwhile, former law minister Babar Awan sought permission to present arguments on behalf of the president after informing the court that the Pakistan Bar Council had renewed his licence to practice law and that he had tendered his resignation from the cabinet, which the acting president had accepted. The court had earlier objected to a cabinet minister appearing on behalf of the federation in the case, saying that it was against the law for him to do so.

Awan accepted that the question was not framed correctly. He then proceeded to argue that former chief justice Syed Naseem Hasan Shah, then a justice on the apex court, admitted in his autobiography – titled “Memoirs and Reflections” – that the verdict against former Prime Minister Bhutto was delivered under pressure from then-President General Muhammad Ziaul Haq.

Awan also cited evidence from two other books, including Bhutto’s own “If I am assassinated”.

The chief justice suggested books of his own, recommending “The Leopard and the Fox” by Tariq Ali.

Justice Sair Ali asked Awan whether the advice of the prime minster was sought on the specific question of the law. Awan replied that the whole cabinet was given a briefing before filing the reference and it was unanimously decided to file the reference and it was later sent to the prime minster for endorsement.

The chief justice asked Awan to read the summary sent to the prime minister and observed that no question of law was placed before him.

The court then adjourned further hearings on the case till April 18, asking Awan to take the time to frame an acceptable legal question for the court to consider.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 15^th, 2011.

COMMENTS (41)

Munir saami | 13 years ago | Reply Of Curative Petitions at a Supreme Court CJ of Pakistan guided Babar Awan to study the curative petitions at the Indian Supreme Court, so that the reference can be based on appropriate points of law. Here is an informative and educational reading: http://ramnitaneja.blogspot.com/2010/09/curative-petition-its-significance-and.html

Munir saami | 13 years ago | Reply @Zoya Khan: You wrote: "Are you listening honourable Chief Justice Mr. Iftikhar Mohammed Choudhry? It’s important to correct this dreadful wrong right" CJ is listening, he even followed up at the Staff and daringly suggested that Army has no role in politics. That may point to his state of mind. It is now the duty of PPP and Awan to present a solid review and convince the court. These matters can not be and should be dealt with as a game of cards by anyone. I am one those Pakistanis who always wanted justice for ZAB, the leader who shifted the paradigm of Pakistani politics.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Zoya Khan | 13 years ago | Reply Z.A Bhutto was a well respected and internationally esteemed leader. He was polished, articulate and had a brilliant mind. He was considered both inside and outside Pakistan as the man the country needed to keep it together- unifying factor of the federation. Most people assumed that he would rule Pakistan for a long time to come. ‘I think I’ll last longer than anyone else who’s governed Pakistan,’ he said, soon after he became President in 1971. But he did not; he was dead before the decade was over. It may not be wrong to say that he has indeed governed longer than anyone else. It is Mr. Bhutto who still commands majority of votes in any election in Pakistan and continues to rule this hapless country from his grave. His name and reputation deserves better. He was the father of constitution of Pakistan but how unfortunate that despite his unrivaled efforts for the country his case was not decided yet. Are you listening honourable Chief Justice Mr. Iftikhar Mohammed Choudhry? It’s important to correct this dreadful wrong right.

MAD | 13 years ago | Reply @John: what SC are you referring to. I dont think any of the current lot was on the bench back then.

Mirza | 13 years ago | Reply @Zahid: Dear Zahid and Liaqut. I agree with you 100%. I once was the same view that ZAB's biggest crime was to "protect and save 93 thousand war criminals from East Pakistan". These criminals should have been tried and punished for their war crimes in their own country. However, upon lot of research I came to the conclusion that even after the humiliation of surrender Pakistan army was still strong enough not to let him or anybody even think about that. Only a few years after their worst defeat in human history, the army hanged ZAB. In fact by hanging ZAB, Pakistani generals have proved that they are the only power in the country. Like BB (1988) and the current PPP government, ZAB also was allowed to assume power on strict conditions by the most powerful forces. That is why not a single general is ever tried for any war crimes or killing of innocent civilians. Army has ruled the country as an "institution" and not individuals. That is why they protect each other and there is never a coup against military rule. Sorry, but nobody could punish the war criminals and Hamood Ur Rehman Commission Report which has the crimes and criminals cannot be published. Instead army and right wing forces hid the report and made ZAB responsible for East Pakistan surrender. Fact is Yehya had full dictatorial powers under martial law and ZAB had no power or post when the army action and atrocities started. In fact if Zardari were not a kid he would have been held responsible for ZAB's murder as well.

Munir Saami | 13 years ago | Reply @SI Every country and every conscientious nation needs civility and sanctity of human rights then everything follows, that includes elimination of unemployment, of terrorism, and of food shortage. All of the problems then begin to be solved.

Munir Saami | 13 years ago | Reply SC has rightly advised Babar Awan to properly prepare for the case. Apparently the court does not want to return the reference on technical grounds. PPP and Awan should seize upon this opportunity and present a robust plea strengthened with appropriate arguments. It is so pathetic that the president sent a reference that has not raised any points of law, and Awan even accepted and conceded that in the court. SC has even suggested that Awan should study the curative petitions handled by the Indian Supreme Court. I wish and pray that the past decisions are overturned, however PPP and Awan should not act in haste and should work hard to make this case the watershed that Pakistan so needs.

John | 13 years ago | Reply @MAD: Umar quoted my writings couple of days ago. No highest court ever visited the same case again after the verdict was given. Only different cases of near similar circumstances were brought before the court by different parties at later days. So let us not confuse the two here. Who judges the court,if it deliberately devalues the justice, as this case happens to be? The people are the judges of the court,and in this case PAK parliamentary special committee comprising all party members with legal aids would be more appropriate. It does not mean, reopening of the case is not permitted. It is up to the people of PAK to decide. But the SC has no moral fiber to re- investigate the case, since as an institution it failed the PAK in the same case before. SC has to face up to the censure from the parliament, if the findings are contradictory to the original verdict. Otherwise, once again the SC sets a bad example as an institution. I not oblivious of the sensitivity of this case to people of PAK. what is important? PAK institutions or an individual case?

goggi | 13 years ago | Reply @SI: Rome was burning and Nero played the fiddle! Pakistani society resembles more and more an animal kingdom. My heart mourns the minorities, poor, destitudes, weak, old, disabled etc. of Pakistan which have no lobby in this male chauvinist society.

MAD | 13 years ago | Reply @Muhammad Imran: true. look how times have changed. incidentally the current Prime Minister staretd out ubnder the wings of the IJI and teh current President has his roots in the NAP (predecessor to the ANP). so the question remains what happenned to the die hard life long PPP supporters. has the PPP been hijacked???

MAD | 13 years ago | Reply @umar: the highest court can revisit its own verdict. only the highest court has that power and that can be found all over the world. there can never be a verdict that cannot be revisited.

MAD | 13 years ago | Reply @Zahid: How strange that ZAB is the central character in the two most shameful events in the history opf Pakistan.

Zai | 13 years ago | Reply I dont understand, if the people of Pakistan loved ZAB so much why didnt they come out to save him?

John | 13 years ago | Reply @umar: For for quoting my write up I did a day ago on this case.

IamConcerned | 13 years ago | Reply Is it a possibility that after 10-20 years the then SC overturn whatever decision this Supreme Court takes? If yes, then lol whats the point? :s

parvez | 13 years ago | Reply The Americans have a great word for dragging events so that nothing decisive comes out, its called filibustering. This is what the PPP and other political parties are doing until the next election. Then the people will be fooled again the circus will restart for another five years. It is time to wake up.

Akhtar | 13 years ago | Reply it is stupid of PPP to go to this partisan court this is antebhuto court a corupt court and a group of individuals who are political

Muhammad Imran | 13 years ago | Reply I heard from someone that the same babar awan distributed sweets when ZAB was hanged. Can someone enlighten me on that?

ilusion | 13 years ago | Reply I am happy....see who is fighting the case for zardari....are we deaf or blind...we still support them....leave them they are money puppets....spend some money they will come to you with moving tails....

Khalid Rahim | 13 years ago | Reply Would any wise person contradict the following sayings in reference to this case; First by Schopenhauer- The amount of noise which anyone can bear undisturbed stands in, inverse proportion to his mental capacity,( inversely the same can create din). Plato explained; Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly.While bad people find ways around the laws. How many of us will accuse Allama Iqbal for saying this; ' Nations are born in the hearts of poets. They prosper and die in the hands of politicians. If we were to combine all above three sayings in reference to the case being argued in the Supreme Court it makes one wonder what type of games are we playing with others,which void we plan to conquer?

Imran | 13 years ago | Reply Firstly, does (former minister) Awan have the requisite skills to represent the Federation? Secondly, I ask these questions after reading the following comments of the SC: “President Asif Ali Zardari has not framed a specific legal question in his reference to the Supreme Court." Finally, If Awan is not capable of performing the role of advocate his reputation should remain intact - given the large number of sacrificial lambs (junior lawyer/s) willing to accept responsibility for the numerous procedural (and legal) mistakes that are to follow.

John | 13 years ago | Reply One can understand the significance of the case to people of PAK. Yet, the questions and veracity of the case remains. Is the gov of PAK asking the SC to acknowledge that the bench committed judicial murder of ZAB? Was it not the PAK gov that asked the SC to do so, if the SC acknowledges that? So, at the end, if the SC says that it was a miscarriage of justice from the bench, will the historians 100 years from now can believe that or will they view that once again that the bench succumbed to political climate and pressure? Every one who lived through that era knew that it was a politically motivated murder, and SC was part of it. The previous SC justice also wrote how he was biased against ZAB. One can not erase this history from PAK history even if the SC admits that it was a miscarriage of justice. A parliamentary committee of judges independent of the SC may be an appropriate body than the same SC hearing about its own verdict. Otherwise, certain things are better, if they are left to the historians and history of the country. Everyone in PAK and the world agrees that ZAB was murdered under judicial miscarriage of justice under pressure from PAK gov of Zia. Now, even if the SC says that it was a judicial murder, historian will always doubt if it was true, or the bench admitted it because of current political pressure, again. If the reopening of the case goes through, the people already know how the verdict will be, given the political climate. So, will any one trust the verdict that comes out, say 2 years from now. Can history be erased or forgotten? I for one when I visit this planet 200 years from now will always be skeptical of the new verdict.

Naseer Khan | 13 years ago | Reply @Dianuj Rafaz Nahk: agree with you

Naseer Khan | 13 years ago | Reply Why does Mr. Zardari not disclose the names of BB's killers whom he claims to know?

A W Bhutto | 13 years ago | Reply Whatever the decision of this case will, nothing will be beneficial we cannot get back the Hero of the 20th century who changed the thoughts and living of people of Pakistan by his courage and his honesty. I salute to Z.A Bhutto. But all those who are ruling now they are enjoying luxuries they don't have care for the poor public. Government should follow the thoughts of Bhutto this will be better than challenging this case in court.

umar | 13 years ago | Reply Aside from the case, which was a dark history in Pakistan, here are the constitutional, legal, and ethical issues: Can the Highest court of the land revisit its verdict on the SAME case ? Will it not be biased in hearing the same case in protecting its honor ? The PAK gov was the prosecutor in that case, and she got her verdict as per prosecution. Why is the prosecution complaining? And how can prosecution prosecute against its own case? Who is the defendant here, PAK gov or PAK supreme court? If PAK gov-ministry of law is the defendant, then who is the prosecution-PAK gov-ministry of law or SC ? If SC is the defendant, since it gave the verdict, how can it be the judge and jury? Whomever the PAK is eventually prosecuting, by asking the SC to reopen the case, the PAK Gov is prosecuting itself, which is unheard off in legal systems The credibility of information that comes out and/or does not come out is questionable due to the above listed conflicts. And so is the verdict either reversing or reaffirming the original verdict- the fruit of original sin doctrine There are other legal and ethical challenges. Is the president, by virtue of his family ties, biased in reopening the case? If so, then is he violating the constitutional privilege of the office? What is going to be the impact of this case in future? Every SC decisions will be challenged by the Presidents office? Will the president also ask the SC to reopen a capital case for every Tom, Dick and Harry in PAK based on this precedence? The SC verdict is the final say in a Constitutional system, however biased, and politically motivated that case may be A typical case study on ethics, and law and conflict of parties involved. The law minister is right. It is the trial of the century !

Hasan | 13 years ago | Reply "President Asif Ali Zardari has not framed a specific legal question in his reference to the Supreme Court .... Awan accepted that the question was not framed correctly." As an experienced constitutional lawyer (heading the team), Awan should at least get this right. I put it to you that Awan might not be up to the job - but no doubt he will blame some junior lawyer/s for the numerous mistakes that are to follow.

Naveed Javed | 13 years ago | Reply The murkiest case in the history of Pakistan must be resolved!

Mirza | 13 years ago | Reply @Dianuj Rafaz Nahk: Who has stopped the "independent judiciary and when Mush was in power to open and decide BB's case? Her case is still in the lower courts as it should be. It would come to HC and ultimately SC, unless CJ takes a suo moto action and starts hearing of this or any important cases. Instead of making 17 judges team the SC can make a small bench and take care of millions of cases pending for decades. Mirza, USA

Mirza | 13 years ago | Reply @Zahid: You said it like it is. It is about time that SC of Pakistan does something of historic significance and remove the black stigma from its face. Better late than never. I am amused and amazed by the unrest in the right wing circles with this review! Mirza, USA

najam chaudhry | 13 years ago | Reply He killed Mr kasoori dad, a PM. never uses gun with his own hands. He might have used someone from his tribe in sindh for this purpose ... He could be good but not gr8 , sorry for hurting anyone

SI | 13 years ago | Reply Everything is going so well in the country__ There no unemployment, no terrorism, no food shortage.All the problems have been solved therefore there is a need for reopening this case.

Sultan Ahmed | 13 years ago | Reply @Patriot: Democracy is taking revenge from all who voted or not voted to him to power, Pray to God, for long life Mian brothers,who provide opportunity to play them first, When they would go,you would find no field no wicket and persons in uniform would have checking your tickets.

Sultan Ahmed | 13 years ago | Reply @Imme: Infidels are saying more than same too they are better than you.

Sultan Ahmed | 13 years ago | Reply really i was very interested in the case,that time every day read the news paper for knowing the development in the matter and one or twice tried to see the hearing in the high court and the great leader but failed due t tight security. I have gone through many cases, registered under section 109 ppc, but found no conviction no sentence of death against the persons involved. Z.A. Bhutto was not involved in the crime directly or indirectly, but biased judges declared him principle accused without any crime weapon's recovery from his possession. The judges who did justice,had to fled Afghanistan via tribal areas,as justice Safder shah, there was no eye witnesses against Mr,Bhutto.who said had seen the occurrence The fact is that, he was innocent absolutely innocent but hanged, it was historic murder,judicial murder also. I am hopefully saying that, our honorable chief justice of the apex court, would remove the stigma from the face of justice.

Munir Saami | 13 years ago | Reply As a Pakistani in diaspora, I am elated at the turn of the events. I hope that the justice prevails and atrocities that have burdened Pakistan in the name of Gen Zia's Allah Hafiz Culture are eliminated once and for all. ZAB's murder is the stigma on the nation's conscience and needs to be removed. Faiz said, "Khoon kay dhabbay dhuleiN gay kitni barsaatoN kay baad". The time for Faiz's 'spotless spring' is before us. Let's make it happen.

Zahid | 13 years ago | Reply @Liaqat-ur-Rehman: I really appreciate your views. You have raised some bitter facts of our history. A history full of such shameful acts by the establishment of this country over and over again. In fact, judicial murder of ZA Bhutto was the second most tragic event of Pakistan's history, first being the Dacca fall. Though ZAB was extremely intelligent and extraordinary leader of his times; however, he failed to estimate the malevolent intentions of the most cunning establishment of our country. I strongly believe that if he had taken a bold step against military generals, those who were held responsible for Dacca fall by Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman commission, he would have saved people of Pakistan from future military misadventures. I never understood why made him decide not to trial those evils.

Patriot | 13 years ago | Reply Democracy is taking revenge from those who voted it to power. What a tragedy?

Imme | 13 years ago | Reply open up more tombs and you will have plenty to play around to complete your tenure .. democracy is a curse to Pakistan and military dictatorship is chronic disease .. seems like this country has no future

Dianuj Rafaz Nahk | 13 years ago | Reply Interesting..very interesting Indeed....Bury the BB case Open the ZAB case and 30 years down the line open the BB case and bury the main issues there then.. BB now we know what you meant when u said democracy is the the best revenge!

Liaqat-ur-Rehman | 13 years ago | Reply Its a unique moment in the chequered history of Pakistan.Z.A Bhutto was killed by the the dictator Zia through a decision of the superior court in 1979.It was a great national and international tragedy,it was not just a barbaric hanging of a citizen through judicial orders but the nation also lost one of its great leaders.From that day to his own death in the airs of Basti Lal Kamal,Zia was constantly haunted by the Bhutto ghost.Prolongation of his illegitimate rule and the decision to hold non-party election in 1985 were some of the reflections of his covert fear from Bhutto legacy and his party-The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).Its strange and regrettable that Bhutto's own daughter becomes Prime Minister in 1988 and again in 1993 but she did not open the case yet his son-in-law deserves special appreciation for reopening a thirty year old case which the people of this country still see with great reservations.Since the case is pending in the competent court of law and its illegal to discuss matters pending there,i would only like to congratulate those who know that the historians were still awaiting one impartial decision on this highly controversial case so the unfinished chapter of the history can be completed and truth may be exposed for the students of history and the public at large.

Replying to X