No relief

The Federal Constitutional Court's decision to reject a plea for the suspension of Bushra Bibi's seven-year sentence in the Al-Qadir Trust case does not come as a surprise. In announcing its ruling, the FCC took a customary view that a plea based purely on humanitarian grounds could not be entertained. This was despite the fact that the court - in line with the typically lenient conventions of the superior judiciary - retained the full authority to grant relief to the accused.

The two-member FCC bench directed the counsel "not to delve into the merits of the case at this stage", citing the fact that a formal hearing on the merits of the conviction remains pending before the Islamabad High Court. While the defence contended that the appeals were being dragged out unnecessarily by the prosecution and NAB in contravention of legal and constitutional norms, this argument failed to sway the judges. Left with few procedural alternatives, the defence pinned its hopes entirely on the humanitarian angle. The appellant's counsel argued that Bushra Bibi, as a woman with a serious medical condition, is entitled to a suspension of her sentence. The counsel further contended that her custodial treatment effectively amounts to an unauthorised enhancement of her sentence, violating her fundamental rights under Article 9 of the Constitution. While the defence maintained that the circumstances justified an immediate intervention by the FCC, the court ultimately chose not to grant such relief. Consequently, the plea was scrapped. The sole consolation offered by the judges was that the high court "would endeavour to decide the main appeal, affording both sides an adequate opportunity of hearing while discouraging unnecessary adjournments".

There are jurists who contend that hearing relief petitions and the suspension of sentences fall outside the prerogative of the FCC, which is a constitutional court meant to focus strictly on the interpretation of constitutional law. The fact that this case was brought before the FCC has led to perceptions of politically motivated targeting. At the very least, effective damage control now requires fixing the appeal on a priority basis so that justice can be served in accordance with the law.