March 7, 2024
Staff Report
LAHORE:
The March 6 ruling of the Supreme Court on the death sentence and execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979 has come “too late”, says senior lawyer Zahid Ebrahim. “A man who did not deserve to be convicted and hanged lost his life and the people who support him, his family members suffered.”
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the decision to hang Bhutto in 1979 violated principles of due process and the right to a fair trial. Reading the short order on Wednesday, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that the court must accept the past missteps and fallibilities with humility, in the spirit of self-accountability.
The decision was announced as a unanimous ruling by a nine-member bench headed by the CJ.
Ebrahim appeared in court on behalf of Z.A. Bhutto’s grandchildren, Fatima Bhutto and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Acknowledging the importance of the ruling, he tells Munizae Jahangir, editor-in-chief of Voicepk, that at least there is an acknowledgment from a forum as high as the Supreme Court of Pakistan that a judgment rendered in 1979 was in violation of the fundamental rights of Pakistan.
Ebrahim elaborates that the Bhutto trial was not simply a question of violation of a fundamental right, but “a question of how the state machinery and unfortunately certain judges acted at the behest of a military dictator.”
He says the order announced on Wednesday is a lesson for anyone attempting to transgress the constitutional safeguards in future, “for those complicit in any such It transgress the constitutional safeguards and be complicit in any such action in future where the judiciary compromises itself with the executive, with a dictator –“It is an effective judgment”.
Responding to a question regarding whether this judgment will set a precedent for addressing the serious wrongs committed by the judiciary in deciding cases of Baloch missing persons, Ebrahim says we have to understand if we want the judiciary to get involved in exercising suo moto jurisdiction. “It’s crucial to evaluate whether such intervention has been beneficial in the past. Suo moto jurisdiction can sometimes lead to the judiciary being dragged into political controversies.”
He thinks it’s not a straightforward matter to simply advocate for suo moto intervention in every case – “Each situation must be carefully considered to avoid exacerbating political tensions and safeguard the integrity of the court”.
Ebrahim emphasizes that the state must prioritize investment, fill vacant positions, in the judiciary to ensure effective adjudication.