ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry Monday directed Babar Awan, appearing as counsel in a presidential reference to revisit the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, to once again consider the relevance of the question of law raised in the reference before the apex court could express its opinion.
A three-member bench of the apex court comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani heard preliminary arguments by Babar Awan regarding revisiting the ZAB reference. The court adjourned the hearing till April 21.
The Chief Justice observed that in his personal view, he intended to hear this reference but there were some lacunae in the reference that needed to be removed. “In each reference this court has questions of law, and now that this reference is before us, you [Awan] need to assist us regarding revisiting the case under Article 186 of the Constitution,” the Chief Justice told Awan. Earlier, Babar Awan in his arguments submitted that he had four main formulations: whether the decisions of the Lahore High Court, and then, of the Supreme Court in the Zab case were justified; whether the execution of ZAB was against certain articles of the Constitution; and whether it was a judicial murder. He submitted that this reference was also essential with reference to the doctrine of repentance in accordance with the Holy Quran and Islamic injunctions.
The chief justice observed that there was no doubt that this reference was a very important one but despite that, the court still had to decide if it could be revisited. The CJ emphasised that the ZAB case was a miscarriage of justice and had become an international phenomenon. He observed that Bhutto was not only a leader of the nation but was also a leader of the Muslim world so the reference was very important; however, presently, the question under discussion was the maintainability of the case in accordance with Article 186 of the Constitution. The CJ said the four formulations Awan made were not under discussion in the preliminary hearing and that he could have submitted them when the reference was accepted and a larger bench constituted.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani also observed that Babar Awan should concentrate on the question of law and Article 186 and asked him whether revisiting the case falls within the scope of Article 186.
Babar Awan replied that the foundation of the case was very strong and stated that everyone knew that a prime minister was hanged under what was a miscarriage of justice. He submitted that the entire reference is a question of law and he was here to discuss the doctrine of repentance and not technicalities. “It was a case where injustice was committed and we just want to correct the record,” he added.
Justice Sair Ali reminded Awan that the reference was based on a cabinet decision but did not reflect on the question of law. He asked him whether the cabinet and the prime minister had agreed to revisit the case. “Yes, both the cabinet and the prime minister have agreed to revisit the case and it was a technical execution by the cabinet,” Awan replied, adding that there was no other case where someone was hanged on charges under article 109 and if there was any other case, then they would like to revisit it. Awan referred to an Indian case decided by Justice Qadri that supported his formulations.
The CJ observed that Awan and the court had to decide on the question of law, and that the president and the prime minister were not experts on technical legal matters. Babar Awan submitted that since both the president and the prime minister had suffered a lot and been to jail, he believed they were aware of the technicalities. “Yes, I know this fact and also know about some off-the-record things which can’t be discussed here,” CJ answered with a smile.
Agencies add: The Chief Justice hinted that the court would adjourn all other cases to hear the ZAB issue. “By doing so, we would be fulfilling the command of the Constitution and our opinion in this case would become a precedent for the whole world. That is why we are giving you an option; because we are very much interested in this case,” the CJ added. He also said that the court would ascertain whether an inquiry report prepared by justice retired Shafi-ur-Rehman was made public or not.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani asked whether the issue of bias could be reason for revisiting the judgment under Article 186. The CJ said that if Awan wanted an opinion on the issue of bias, the court was ready to give it. The News
A three-member bench of the apex court comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani heard preliminary arguments by Babar Awan regarding revisiting the ZAB reference. The court adjourned the hearing till April 21.
The Chief Justice observed that in his personal view, he intended to hear this reference but there were some lacunae in the reference that needed to be removed. “In each reference this court has questions of law, and now that this reference is before us, you [Awan] need to assist us regarding revisiting the case under Article 186 of the Constitution,” the Chief Justice told Awan. Earlier, Babar Awan in his arguments submitted that he had four main formulations: whether the decisions of the Lahore High Court, and then, of the Supreme Court in the Zab case were justified; whether the execution of ZAB was against certain articles of the Constitution; and whether it was a judicial murder. He submitted that this reference was also essential with reference to the doctrine of repentance in accordance with the Holy Quran and Islamic injunctions.
The chief justice observed that there was no doubt that this reference was a very important one but despite that, the court still had to decide if it could be revisited. The CJ emphasised that the ZAB case was a miscarriage of justice and had become an international phenomenon. He observed that Bhutto was not only a leader of the nation but was also a leader of the Muslim world so the reference was very important; however, presently, the question under discussion was the maintainability of the case in accordance with Article 186 of the Constitution. The CJ said the four formulations Awan made were not under discussion in the preliminary hearing and that he could have submitted them when the reference was accepted and a larger bench constituted.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani also observed that Babar Awan should concentrate on the question of law and Article 186 and asked him whether revisiting the case falls within the scope of Article 186.
Babar Awan replied that the foundation of the case was very strong and stated that everyone knew that a prime minister was hanged under what was a miscarriage of justice. He submitted that the entire reference is a question of law and he was here to discuss the doctrine of repentance and not technicalities. “It was a case where injustice was committed and we just want to correct the record,” he added.
Justice Sair Ali reminded Awan that the reference was based on a cabinet decision but did not reflect on the question of law. He asked him whether the cabinet and the prime minister had agreed to revisit the case. “Yes, both the cabinet and the prime minister have agreed to revisit the case and it was a technical execution by the cabinet,” Awan replied, adding that there was no other case where someone was hanged on charges under article 109 and if there was any other case, then they would like to revisit it. Awan referred to an Indian case decided by Justice Qadri that supported his formulations.
The CJ observed that Awan and the court had to decide on the question of law, and that the president and the prime minister were not experts on technical legal matters. Babar Awan submitted that since both the president and the prime minister had suffered a lot and been to jail, he believed they were aware of the technicalities. “Yes, I know this fact and also know about some off-the-record things which can’t be discussed here,” CJ answered with a smile.
Agencies add: The Chief Justice hinted that the court would adjourn all other cases to hear the ZAB issue. “By doing so, we would be fulfilling the command of the Constitution and our opinion in this case would become a precedent for the whole world. That is why we are giving you an option; because we are very much interested in this case,” the CJ added. He also said that the court would ascertain whether an inquiry report prepared by justice retired Shafi-ur-Rehman was made public or not.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani asked whether the issue of bias could be reason for revisiting the judgment under Article 186. The CJ said that if Awan wanted an opinion on the issue of bias, the court was ready to give it. The News
