Requirements for fair trial not met in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto reference: CJ
In the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi issued an additional note in which he agreed with Justice Mansoor‘s note to some extent.
In the additional note, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi wrote that I agreed to read the notes of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and other judges, but I agree with Justice Mansoor’s note to some extent.
Chief Justice Yahya Afridi wrote that the opinion given in the reference has discussed the case’s merits to some extent.
Article 186 The Supreme Court has only advisory jurisdiction; however, I agree with the decision’s paragraph on the question of a fair trial.
In the additional note, the Chief Justice further wrote that I have come to the conclusion that the trial court and the appellate court did not meet the fair trial requirements in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, and the High Court cannot directly try the murder case under the Criminal Code.
Chief Justice Yahya Afridi has written that the late former Chief Justice Naseem Hassan Shah later admitted that he was under external pressure in the Bhutto case, which is a sad chapter in the judicial history of our nation.
The Chief Justice wrote that the bold dissenting notes of Justice Durab Patel, Justice Muhammad Aleem, and Justice Safdar in the Bhutto case highlight the importance of standing by their stand despite the prevailing environment.
The dissenting notes of these judges did not change the situation, but the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary remained intact. The dissenting notes highlighted the importance of an independent judiciary committed to the rule of law.
In an additional note, the Chief Justice clarified that in my opinion, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was deprived of a fair trial.
If incidents like the Bhutto case are not remedied, the transparency of the judicial system and public trust remain at risk.
