- Bhutto’s trial was labeled a “judicial murder” due to procedural violations.
- Accountability under dictatorship requires transitional justice.
- Justice Mansoor: Judges must uphold independence and principles.
ISLAMABAD: Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has criticized political trials as a powerful and notorious “judicial tool” used by authoritarian regimes to suppress political dissent and eliminate opposition. . The News Reported
Justice Mansoor, in a seven-page supplementary note issued on Tuesday regarding the presidential reference on former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s death sentence, said, “These cases are based on due process and fair trial to produce politically desirable results.” Often violates the requirements.
On 6 March 2024, a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court concluded that Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) founder Bhutto had been denied a fair trial in his case.
Justice Shah said Bhutto’s assassination case was a classic example of a political trial, which showed how such a trial could be used for more authoritarian purposes.
Justice Shah said, “Bhutto’s trial served as a powerful and infamous ‘judicial tool’ to consolidate General Zia’s authoritarian regime, aimed at suppressing political resistance, eliminating opposition and consolidating power.” was held to strengthen.
Rather than relying on independent, concrete evidence, the prosecution relied heavily on confessions obtained from Bhutto’s former associates, who had become approvers.
The senior judge also noted the silent application of transitional justice in Pakistan, which can be found in several notable cases, including the conviction and upholding of sentence of General Pervez Musharraf, the Sindh High Court Bar Association case (which declared General Musharraf’s declaration as unconstitutional) and Nawaz Sharif’s case which annulled his conviction in the Army Chief’s plane hijacking case.
“These cases highlight the importance of ensuring accountability for both executive and judicial office holders during periods of authoritarian rule,” Justice Shah said, adding that they also serve as a reminder. That transitional justice will remain an important tool to deal with any future authoritarian situation. Political trials
The senior judge added that multiple violations of procedural due process and fair trial requirements were identified to achieve politically desirable results.
Justice Shah said the violations included the unauthorized re-investigation of the case (which was earlier closed by the magistrate), the federal investigation of the provincial police. Includes illegal transfer to investigating agency and wrongful transfer of case from Sessions Court. to the High Court.
Moreover, Bhutto’s bail was wrongly canceled by a single bench of the Lahore High Court, and his recall petition was decided apart from the judges whose recall was sought.
Moreover, the trial and appellate court benches consisted of judges—Justice Maulvi Mushtaq and Justice Anwarul Haq—who harbored personal grudges against Bhutto for being approved for appointment as chief justices of their respective courts.
There was also an unnecessary reorganization of the Appellate Court Bench from nine to seven judges.
Justice Shah asserted, “It is a settled principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done.”
These violations of fundamental principles also violated the requirements of due process and fair trial, the senior judge said, adding that because of these flagrant violations, Bhutto was rightly subjected to an “unfair trial” and ” considered a victim of “legal political murder”. This is called “judicial killing”.
“Both glaring procedural irregularities and illegalities in the re-examination and trial, as well as the biased composition of the trial and appellate court benches, rendered the judgment illegal and undermined the independence of the superior courts (High Courts and the Supreme Court) and Undermined impartiality for years to come, Justice Shah said.
He said that the Constitution and the law do not provide any mechanism to overturn Bhutto’s conviction and sentence as the decision became final after the court dismissed the review petition.
“Furthermore, in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 of the Constitution, this Court does not have the power to re-examine the evidence or set aside the final judgment. However, re-investigation and careful review of the record of trial Later, we concluded – and held that – the proceedings in the Lahore High Court and the appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court of Pakistan did not meet the requirements of the fundamental right enshrined in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution The trial and due process, which was later reinforced as a separate and independent fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution, said Justice Shah.
Justice Shah said that judges serving under authoritarian regimes should remember that their real strength lies not in holding office but in standing firm on their independence and principles.
He said Justice Durab Patel exemplified this ideal when he boldly dissented in the Bhutto case, acquitted Bhutto of the charges, and later overturned the Interim Constitutional Order (PCI) issued by General Zia. (o) refused to take the oath, and thus withdrew from its eight incoming members. – One year term as Chief Justice of Pakistan.
“Furthermore, holding both the executive and judicial institutions accountable for their actions in an era of authoritarian repression, as well as pardoning past victims of state repression and miscarriages of justice, transition these state institutions to greater respect and necessary to facilitate the promotion of the rule of law and fundamental human rights,” concluded the senior judge.