ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa questioned on Tuesday whether there was a chance to defend the military and the courts by reexamining the contentious death penalty imposed on former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Judge Isa said, “There must be a start at some point in our lengthy and chequered history, since we are constantly dwelling in the past but not aiming at the future.” She clarified that martial rules were enforced by private citizens rather than the military establishment.
A nine-judge SC bench led by Chief Justice Isa had took up the reference filed on April 2, 2011, on behalf of former President Asif Ali Zardari, seeking an opinion on reexamining Mr. Bhutto’s death sentence under the SC advisory jurisdiction.
Two years after Gen. Ziaul Haq toppled the PPP administration, a seven-judge court unanimously affirmed a Lahore High Court ruling that the PPP founder should be executed. The decision was made by a vote of four to three.
Is it possible for the armed forces and judiciary to be upheld by reconsidering the Bhutto reference
The CJP said, “I find a major problem with the verdict the way it was conducted.”
Additionally, he questioned whether bringing the case back to light would improve the military’s standing and “heal the wounds” of the country.
The chief justice stated that the courts may take a “innovative” stance by being careful not to regard this as a review, or they could avoid dealing with it altogether since they believe it to be a political matter. He said that opening a fairly narrow door could help prevent the scope from being expanded to include the review of every other instance.
In his role as an amicius curiae, senior attorney Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that this was a matter of public concern about public trust in the administration of justice and that it was clearly within the purview of the judiciary.
Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the only basis for pursuing the presidential reference was the judges’ “dictation” rather than their independent actions; yet, the only supporting documentation available was a transcript of Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah’s interview, the former chief justice.
He questioned, “Where is the evidence to demonstrate the judges who determined the Bhutto murder plea were under pressure?” He said that to suggest that all cases determined during military regimes were deemed void would be equivalent to claiming that there was martial law. Justice Shah stated, “We have to make a significant policy decision.”
The counsel, however, said Gen Zia’s interest to have a particular outcome of this case was a well-established fact and part of history books and lend strength to a reasonable apprehension that due process of law was not followed in this case, the counsel argued.
At this, Justice Shah recalled one of the amici, Prof Yasir Qureshi from Oxford University, in his written submission to the court highlighted that several countries were finding ways to undo past injustices, including those committed during the military regimes, by establishing a Truth Commission. He cited the example of Brazil, where executive and legislative pardons were granted.
If this reference was decided in favor of Zulfikar Bhutto junior and Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned what remedy they would receive. If they asked for Qisas (blood money), she pondered.
At this time, senior counsel Farooq H. Naek was consulted by the PPP chairman, who appeared to be agitated.
However, Makhdoom Ali Khan advised the court that the public’s trust in the legal system and the court’s reputation were the sole remedies, and that no one should pursue compensation.
The CJP remarked that the particular query was whether it would be wise to pursue this decision further.
Judge Jamal Khan Mandokhel noted that this might be a chance to stop outside intervention in court cases. He inquired as to whether the court might give the president advice on returning this issue to parliament. The hearing is scheduled to recommence on Monday.
SOURCE: DAWN NEWS
