ISLAMABAD—The murder trial of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was described by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi on Tuesday as a sobering reminder of how constitutional governance deviations can unduly influence judicial proceedings in politically charged cases, undermining the ideals of impartiality and due process in such extraordinary circumstances.
In a five-page note on the presidential reference in the PPP founder’s murder trial, the CJP noted, “This also accentuates the importance of recognising the courageous dissents of Justice Dorab Patel, Justice Muhammad Haleem, and Justice G. Safdar Shah who stood their ground despite the prevailing atmosphere.”
The CJP stated in his note that their dissents, even if they were unable to change the verdict, still serve as evidence of the timeless values of impartiality and judicial integrity, highlighting the importance of an independent judiciary dedicated to the rule of law.
After more than four decades of delay, the Supreme Court finally righted a historic wrong on March 6 when it acknowledged that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s murder trial was unfair and lacked due process, both during the trial and when it endorsed the appeal court’s decision.
Justice Afridi states in his reference note that fairness concerns were raised by the manipulation of the bench’s composition.
CJP Afridi expressed sorrow that the unique political circumstances of the era and the pressures that come with it seem to have affected the administration of justice in a way that was at odds with the principles of judicial independence.
“However, it is highly relevant to observe that the current reference was avowedly filed against the backdrop of the judiciary’s restoration and its proactive role in addressing the matters of public importance,” he stated.
He clarified that the presidential reference emphasized the “admission” of the late Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, a former Chief Justice, about outside influences on the ruling in Mr. Bhutto’s appeal, characterizing it as a sad episode in the history of the judiciary.
He believed that if it weren’t for the facts revealed in Justice Nasim Shah’s book and interview, the referral might never have reached the court.
The claim that Mr. Bhutto’s trial was tainted by the bias of Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, who presided over the Lahore High Court during the trial, was dismissed by Justice Nasim Shah in the Supreme Court’s ruling. This position, however, stands in stark contrast to his subsequent statements made in an interview with Iftikhar Ahmad on the show “Jawab Deyh.” During the interview, Justice Shah said that Justice Maulvi Mushtaq should not have been on the LHC bench because he was an open enemy of Mr. Bhutto.
In actuality, Justice Maulvi Mushtaq’s appointment to the LHC bench was referred to as Ziadati, a term that could only be construed as bias throughout the trial. Concerns were raised over Justice Mushtaq’s assessment of the appeal’s question of prejudice due to this glaring contradiction in Justice Nasim Shah’s opinions.
In his memoirs Memoirs and Reflections, Justice Nasim Shah disclosed some information that implied Attorney General Sharifuddin Pirzada and Justice Maulvi Mushtaq had arranged for him to be on the bench to hear Mr. Bhutto’s appeal.
According to CJP Afridi, such manipulation of the bench composition compromised judicial impartiality and created grave questions regarding the proceedings’ fairness.
He went on to say that it showed how Justice Maulvi Mushtaq vigorously pursued the case even after the high court’s ruling had completed the case and the appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court, even though his involvement had ended with the high court’s ruling.
According to the CJP, this unjustified intervention following conviction weakened trust in the appellate process’s impartiality and blurred the lines of judicial propriety. The assumed impartiality of the court decision-making in Mr. Bhutto’s trial was significantly compromised by these reports of events. He noted that such incidents ran the risk of undermining public trust in the justice system’s fairness if they were not addressed.
