THE Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the trial under the 1979 judgment that sent former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to the gallows did not meet the requirements of a “fair trial and due process”. Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, a nine-judge bench announced its opinion on the long-pending presidential reference to answer whe¬ther it can revisit its verdict, which the PPP and many jurists regard as a historic wrong. In its unanimous opinion, the apex court held “The proceedings of the trial by the Lahore High Court and of the appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan do not meet the requirements of the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, and later guaranteed as a separate and fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution.”
The opinion has a symbolic value as the damage has already been done, which cannot be compensated by revisiting the verdict or the views of the incumbent SC on the quality of proceedings and judgments in the case. However, credit surely goes to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) for his decision to pick up the longstanding reference (which was filed by the then President Asif Ali Zardari way back in 2011) for hearing and delivering an opinion on it. The opinion of the court comes as consolation for heirs and lovers of the great leader and this was highlighted by the sentimental reaction by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who described the opinion as ‘historic’. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has also welcomed the short order of the court, observing “It is not possible to correct the historical mistake, but by admitting the serious mistake, a new history and a new tradition have been established,” adding that the process of national unity and development can be accelerated only by correcting past mistakes and eliminating enmities. Bilawal’s sister, Aseefa Bhutto, gave words to the common belief that ZAB’s was the ‘judicial murder’. The court has understandably not changed the original verdict but one hopes the detailed judgment would not only point out flaws in the case for future reference but also initiate the much-awaited process of judicial reforms aimed at ensuring fair and transparent trial, a demand that needs to be accorded priority in view of widely held belief that important cases are delivered on considerations other than merit.
