Pakistani court issues written opinion on ‘unfair’ Zulfiqar Bhutto trial

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s Supreme Court has ruled that the murder trial of former prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was “unfair and lacked due process”, noting that the country and the courts were prisoners of matrimonial law, ARY News reported on Monday.

The Supreme Court has issued a detailed 48-page opinion on a presidential petition filed by former President Asif Ali Zardari more than a decade ago.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, a larger nine-member bench comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Musarrat Hilali heard the reference.

The petition filed in April 2011 on behalf of former President Asif Ali Zardari sought an opinion, within the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, on the review of the death sentence imposed on the PPP founder.

In the detailed opinion issued today, the Supreme Court said the proceedings in the trial before the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan “do not meet the requirements of the fundamental right to fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 4 (right of individuals to be treated according to law) and 9 (security of person) and later guaranteed as a separate and independent fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution.”

In its opinion, the Supreme Court addressed all the questions posed in the reference, one by one, explaining that in carrying out their essential duty of administering justice “in accordance with the Constitution and the law,” judges were required to do good to all kinds of people, in accordance with the law, without fear or favour, without affection or malice.

There have been certain cases in our judicial history which have created a public perception that fear or favour deterred us from carrying out our duty to administer justice in accordance with the law.

He explained that the trial and the appeal court

The courts that conducted the trial and heard the appeal were not real courts within the meaning of the Constitution. “The country was under martial law, and so were its courts. When judges swear allegiance to dictators, the courts are no longer the courts of the people,” he added.

READ: Supreme Court issues opinion on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case

The opinion states that, within the framework of its advisory jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot reweigh the evidence and overturn the decision.

The opinion further noted that the trial court, which tried and convicted Zulfiqar Bhutto, and the appeal court, which dismissed her appeal, were operating when there was no constitutional rule in the country and “the will of one man became law and his person had replaced the entire democratic order.”

“The expression of such incredulous admiration has undermined the credibility of the Court of Appeal. Was it not obvious that General Zia-ul-Haq would be the direct beneficiary of a guilty verdict? Had Mr Bhutto been acquitted, he could have prosecuted General Haq for high treason. Haq’s personal survival depended on Mr Bhutto’s conviction. The continuation of usurped power required that Mr Bhutto be convicted,” he added.

The Supreme Court, including the three honourable judges of the Supreme Court who acquitted Zulfiqar Bhutto, have also stated that “fundamental rights have been validly suspended since July 5, 1977.”

“Therefore, and it must be admitted, the trial was conducted and the appeal heard without Mr. Bhutto having enjoyed the constitutional protection of fundamental rights and other rights guaranteed by the Constitution,” he added.

She added: “Each of the above transgressions could have tainted the trial and conviction, but cumulatively they destroyed any semblance of due process and a fair trial, and revealed that innocent men were rushed to the gallows.”

In March 1979, nearly two years after General Ziaul Haq overthrew his government, a seven-judge bench had, in a split verdict of four to three, upheld the death sentence passed by the LHC against the former prime minister.