SC to resume hearing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reference tomorrow

ISLAMABAD: A nine-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC) will hear a long-pending presidential reference on Monday, seeking to revisit the 1979 ‘controversial’ death sentence awarded to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, ARY News reported.

The larger bench – head by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin Ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Musarrat Hilali – will take up the reference for hearing.

A day earlier, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had submitted its written comments to the apex court along with some additional documents including transcripts and video recordings of various interviews.

The PPP, in its comments, has given references from various books and it also included the details of the interview of former chief justice Naseem Hassan Shah.

Previously, former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had conducted five hearings on the presidential reference — whose last hearing was held on November 11, 2012.

Former President Asif Ali Zardari had approached the Supreme Court in 2011 through a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution, seeking to revisiting the trial of the PPP Founder Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was handed a death sentence during former military ruler General (retired) Ziaul Haq’s regime.

The first elected prime minister of the country was charged with the murder of a political rival Nawab Mohammed Ahmed Qasuri and a trial took place.

Amid petitions and appeals of clemency, and mercy from several Heads of States, Bhutto was hanged on April 4, 1979.

Last hearing

In the last hearing – conducted on Dec 12, 2023, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised questions over the maintainability of the presidential reference.

The Supreme Court judge sought assistance in determining the questions of law, observing that the court had already dismissed the appeal against its verdict which had also achieved the finality.

“Please concentrate on the maintainability and the constitutional question how do we open this matter if at all,” the judge added.

Naek argued that three factors needed to be present under Article 186: it should be a public matter, involve a question of law, and require the SC’s opinion. However, Justice Shah contended that the apex court determined the question of law, while public importance was the president’s responsibility.

The judge emphasised that the question of law should go beyond the judgment, expressing concern about the president sending references and the court revisiting judgments, stating it was not “the correct way to go about.”