Pakistan

ZA Bhutto case: SC constitutes larger bench for presidential reference

President Asif Ali Zardari refers specific questions of law to the court.

Qaiser Zulfiqar April 22, 2011

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has constituted a larger bench to hear the presidential reference on the murder trial of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after President Asif Ali Zardari referred specific questions of law to the court.

The government’s counsel, Babar Awan, presented the questions of law before the three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

The first question placed before the bench by Awan was whether the decision of the Lahore High Court (LHC) in Bhutto’s murder trial upheld by the Supreme Court meets the requirements of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

Awan asked if the conviction leading to the execution of Bhutto was binding on all other courts and whether the death sentence justified given the circumstances of the case or would it amount to deliberate murder keeping in view the alleged bias against ZA Bhutto.

The president has also inquired whether the verdict against Bhutto fulfils the requirements of Islamic laws.

The court summoned the original record of Bhutto’s trial from the LHC to facilitate Awan in preparation of his arguments. The next hearing will be on May 2.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 22^nd, 2011.

COMMENTS (9)

Sultan Ahmed | 13 years ago | Reply Bail was allowed, justice S.A.Samdani, of the Lahore High court. Without any delay,a bench was constituted,under chief justice Molvi Mushtaq, bail was cancel,rearrest order was issued, subsequently tried and convicted, sentenced to death, on the statement of person who was kept in custody for 100 days then got a confessional statement,he was made approver, On the other hand ,all the circumstances heading to the way leading to ''judicial murder''

M Sheheryar Khan msheheryar@mail.com mehmud.ahmed@gmail.com | 13 years ago | Reply What sort of news story is this. Is this what they say "Brevity is the soul of wit". How many judges are on the enlarged bench and who are they? If the decision is in principle and the Bench is to be named yet then why the reporter not say so. It also does not say the specific law points Baber Awan has raised. Very poor reporting, indeed.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Nageen | 13 years ago | Reply Are you guys seriously worried about ZAB case. I think presi and all the others should be pondering of rehabilitation of flood ridden people and ending drone strikes. With so much at hand do we really have time to dig what does nto affect us today? When will our government learn strategic plan...when? Govt. makes 5 year plan for growth and success and we are busy in re-opening a long lost dead case. Better would have been if he would have looked into Murtaza Bhutto and BB's case. I feel pity on how out of focus we are!

Saqib | 13 years ago | Reply Simply put its a wastage of time and an attempt to hoodwink the nation from real issues this country faces. Regardless, it doesn't matter to a common man so let bygones be bygones. Questions raised in amended appeal, imagine for a minute, can't they be applied to any sentence of death confirmed by Supreme Court? Just imagine...Yes they can! So why provide for another provision for another apeal to Supreme Court as it is it takes considerably long time to reach the stage of review in Supreme Court, like this there will be no end to litigation. Most important issue to think is, when a new government is formed, with new loyalties, and new judges are on the bench what will stop them from reviewing today's judges verdict on this re-opening of closed case having exhausted all the forums. Where will this stop?

Saqib | 13 years ago | Reply Everybody is equal in the eyes of law and specially Islamic law. The questions of law raised in the amended petition are too general t open any previous case and can be universally applied. It will tantamount to adding a new clause in constitutiion for another review after a review is already dismissed in the apex court. In simple words there will be another re-review provision in apex court for any review decision. It's like playing havoc with constitution and well established criminal legal procedure which is derived from the common law. There will be no end to appeals and reviews till end of times like this. Why not open case of Nathu who's death sentence was also upheld by Supreme Court of Pakistan. Crux of the matter is that this reference is based on malafides to get cheap importance and divert public attention from real issues of a common man who doesn't give two hoots to whatever Supreme Court decides about a dead horse and dead horsemen. This nation is always worshipping graves and throwing their present into a well with non-issues.

Farrukh Siddiqui | 13 years ago | Reply Osman: what you are saying is utter non-sense. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah himself admitted they were under pressure to give a guilty verdict. There cant be any case against Bhutto when one of the SC judges himself admitted guilt and wrong doing!

Osman | 13 years ago | Reply It is easy to say that it was a wrong committed by the judiciary, but it is a totally separate thing to prove it. There was no question in the case that he was guilty. The other accused pointed to Bhutto in the court and said he ordered us and then apologised to Ahmed Raza Kasuri. They were hanged with him. As for him being the first elected ruler. In case you forget, he lost the election and refused to accept the handing of power to east Pakistan. This resulted in the murder of 2 million people by the army(as claimed by Bangladesh). As for the 1973 constitution. He had no intention to keep the constitution. Four hours after the constitution was approved, he suspended it. And it remained suspended throughout his rule. After ZAB's second election, where there were massive allegations of rigging, there were large scale protests. He ordered the army to fire on the people which is when the army removed him. It was similar to the situation in Egypt recently. He lost one election and the second election was rigged. Technically he hadn't won a single fair election. And he himself was the biggest supporter of the army before this incident. And the army wasn't the only one putting pressure on the judges. The bhutto family had done the same, but in his case he was giving death threats rather than threats to remove them from their jobs. Safdar Shah had faked his own degree, a case which was brought to the law minister during ZAB's rule. This whole case is on record. It has been alledged that he was being blackmailed for this reason to give a verdict in favour of bhutto. If he was thrown out then the verdict would have been 4-2 against ZAB.

John | 13 years ago | Reply "The president has also inquired whether the verdict against Bhutto fulfils the requirements of Islamic laws." Except the above question, the remaining questions were also asked in near similar manner during Bhutto's appeal, and Mr. Bhutto himself argued as much his own defense in SC. His defense team also argued if death sentence is applicable in a split verdict, and the issue of LHC bias, unfair trial, etc were also argued. Would be surprised if SC says NO to all those questions except Islamic law question. The answer will mostly likely be that it did not fulfill the requirements of Islamic law, since under islamic law the testimony of the approver is inadmissible. The Islamic law question is a brilliant move. Way out for all. But does it change history? The world knows that Mr. Bhutto did not receive fair trial in LHC and also in SC and politically assassinated by Zia for various reasons.

Mirza | 13 years ago | Reply I hope and pray for the sake of Pakistan and integrity (if any left) of SC that this time they do not do the same thing that they did with M. Mai. ZAB's case is not a rocket science. Out of 10 judges of SC, chief justice Yaqoob was dismissed by dictator Zia before the trial. Two out of the remaining 9 judges were retired or sent on sick leave. While out of 7 some got extensions! Still the decision was 4:3. Even if one single judge or jury member dissents, the person does not get death penalty. In addition, Nasim Hasan Shah who later became CJ of SC, said in interviews and in his book that they "had to give that decision under pressure". That statement alone makes the whole case null and void against ZAB. Now the case is revisited, so the remnants of dictatorship are shivering in their boots. They are making excuses and including every Tom Dick and Harry to confuse the issue. None of the other people were first elected PM of Pakistan who gave the first and the only constitution to the country and was judicially hanged by a dictator. The dozens of SC judges are not doing anything of national importance and instead of political cases or releasing gang rapists, they better get busy in a case of "historic and National" importance. By keeping the judges busy and "earning" their salary is not an added expense. Mirza, USA

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Entertainment

Lana Del Rey announces new album 'The Right Person Will Stay'

Baymax joins Fortnite Chapter 6: Leaked battle pass details revealed

Fortnite Chapter 6 leaks reveal Baymax from ‘Big Hero 6’ as a playable skin in the upcoming battle pass.
CT Tamburello exposes ex Catalina White’s DMs with Ariel Helwani

CT Tamburello accuses ex Catalina White of being an escort and reveals her alleged DMs with Ariel Helwani.
Dr Disrespect officially joins Rumble with equity deal and exclusive streams

Dr Disrespect partners with Rumble for exclusive streams, equity deal, and advisory role, marking a major move.
DJ Akademiks slams Kendrick Lamar for ‘GNX’ collab with ‘colonizer’ Jack Antonoff

DJ Akademiks criticizes Kendrick Lamar’s choice of Jack Antonoff as co-producer on ‘GNX,’ despite praising the music.