ZA Bhutto case: AG asked not to repeat Awan’s arguments
CJP advises attorney general to present the constitutional and legal rationales.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday asked Attorney General of Pakistan (AG) Maulvi Anwarul Haq not to repeat Advocate Babar Awan’s arguments in the presidential reference seeking to revisit the death sentence awarded to ex-premier and founder of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Anwarul Haq, while opening his arguments before an 11-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, submitted that Bhutto was hanged in haste as the death sentence is usually executed from seven to 21 days after the issuance of black warrants, whereas Bhutto was hanged within 12 hours after he was awarded capital punishment.
He contended that contrary to the law and decisions of the Supreme Court, the Lahore High Court played the role of a trial court in Bhutto’s case, whereas it should have played the role of an appellate court.
The CJP advised the AG to present the constitutional and legal rationales and refrain from repeating the arguments that Awan had already made.
The court adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period on the request of the AG that more time was needed to prepare arguments with reference to questions of laws.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 30th, 2011.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday asked Attorney General of Pakistan (AG) Maulvi Anwarul Haq not to repeat Advocate Babar Awan’s arguments in the presidential reference seeking to revisit the death sentence awarded to ex-premier and founder of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Anwarul Haq, while opening his arguments before an 11-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, submitted that Bhutto was hanged in haste as the death sentence is usually executed from seven to 21 days after the issuance of black warrants, whereas Bhutto was hanged within 12 hours after he was awarded capital punishment.
He contended that contrary to the law and decisions of the Supreme Court, the Lahore High Court played the role of a trial court in Bhutto’s case, whereas it should have played the role of an appellate court.
The CJP advised the AG to present the constitutional and legal rationales and refrain from repeating the arguments that Awan had already made.
The court adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period on the request of the AG that more time was needed to prepare arguments with reference to questions of laws.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 30th, 2011.