Bhutto’s execution benefited Zia, violated justice: SC

Abdullah Jan

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a detailed opinion on the presidential reference regarding the execution of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, acknowledging that an innocent person was hanged without a transparent trial.

Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa penned the 48-page opinion, with additional notes provided by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. The opinion highlights that Bhutto’s trial occurred under martial law, compromising the constitutional integrity of the courts at the time.

The opinion emphasises that during Bhutto’s trial, the country was under martial law, and the judiciary lacked constitutional legitimacy. “The country and the courts were prisoners of martial law at that time,” stated the opinion, noting that the courts were operated by judges who had pledged loyalty to the dictator, not to the people.

The Chief Justice’s opinion pointed out that General Ziaul Haq, who was the military ruler at the time, directly benefited from Bhutto’s execution. “Ziaul Haq directly benefited from the decision to hang Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,” the detailed opinion read.

The Supreme Court’s opinion also criticised the procedural flaws in the investigation and trial of Bhutto. It noted that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) commenced its investigation before officially receiving the case file, which was a breach of protocol. Furthermore, the High Court’s conduct of the trial rendered several legal provisions ineffective, violating Bhutto’s fundamental rights.

“The requirements for a transparent trial were not fulfilled,” the Chief Justice stated, emphasizing that there was no direct evidence linking Bhutto to the crime. Additionally, the bullet shell recovered from the crime scene did not match the firearms used by the Federal Security Force (FSF), undermining the prosecution’s case.

The opinion also addressed the misuse of Bhutto’s parliamentary speeches in court, asserting that such speeches cannot be used as evidence against any member of Parliament. “The courts also justified Bhutto’s speeches in Parliament, which should not have been permissible,” it stated.

The Supreme Court’s larger bench of nine members had completed the hearing on the Bhutto reference on March 4, issuing a unanimous opinion on March 6.

The court concluded that Bhutto did not receive a fair trial, and the justice requirements were grossly unmet. The trial procedures were incomplete, and Bhutto was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself.