Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar declared that Bhutto’s execution, predicated only on the testimony of an approver, was unconstitutional.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar of the Supreme Court has asserted that the execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, predicated only on the testimony of an approver, was unlawful and violated fundamental principles of justice.

In a comprehensive 24-page memorandum about the presidential reference on Bhutto’s death, Justice Mazhar asserted that decisions rendered in haste, rage, or bias contravene both Pakistan’s legal system and Islamic tenets of justice.

Justice Mazhar referenced previous interviews with former Chief Justice Naseem Hasan Shah, who acknowledged that the ruling in the Bhutto case was rendered under duress. He noted that such a statement unequivocally indicates that the execution constituted a “judicial killing” and represented a blatant breach of a judge’s oath.

Justice Mazhar stated that if a judge exhibits anger towards a party or counsel, or loses patience, it becomes unfeasible to administer justice in line with the law. He asserted that the judges presiding over Bhutto’s appeal were purportedly in an irate disposition, hence precluding the likelihood of an unbiased and autonomous verdict.

The note indicates that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s trial did not adhere to the fair trial criteria stipulated in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution. The processes were opaque and failed to meet the legal standards of due process. Imposing the death penalty exclusively based on the testimony of an approver was seen as a breach of essential legal and ethical standards.

Justice Mazhar additionally noted that the evidence indicated personal bias and preconceived views among the judges, thereby compromising the integrity of a fair verdict. He also saw that a case previously closed by the police was reopened during the martial law period without any legal grounds.

The note indicated that the case transfer from the Sessions Court to the High Court was executed perfunctorily, without informing the accused or adhering to requisite legal protocols. Justice Mazhar declared that Bhutto’s declaration of distrust in the presiding judge throughout the trial was rejected, contravening the tenets of justice.

Justice Mazhar emphasized that the advising power of the Supreme Court holds considerable legal authority for all state institutions. He stated that the employment of abrasive language and sardonic comments during the trial undermined judicial decorum and impartiality.

Justice Mazhar posed essential inquiries regarding the court’s framing of the concept of “repentance” in a case characterized by an unjust and prejudiced trial, questioning who was anticipated to express remorse—the deceased justices who adjudicated the matter in the High Court or those who considered the appeal and review petitions.

He determined that, although subsequent opinions did not overtly convey remorse, they indicated a certain level of regret for the failure to guarantee a fair trial and due process. Justice Mazhar said that a conclusive determination regarding Question No. 4 of the presidential reference has not yet been made.