ISLAMABAD: SM Zafar, the amicus curiae of the Supreme Court in the presidential reference to revisit the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto murder case, has declared Bhutto a relic of the past and said revisiting his case is like touring the ruins of the Mohenjodaro civilisation without knowing how the vibrant city died.
In his opinion submitted before the court, Zafar has also attacked the presidential reference on legal grounds, stating that it didn’t mention questions of law and was riddled in confusion since several articles quoted in the reference, such as 10 A, did not even exist at the time of the trial. The remaining quotations of articles of the Constitution are vague since the particular instances quoted do not make them relevant to the case, Zafar contended. He further explained that President Zardari’s counsel Babar Awan had acknowledged more than once that the president did not want to set aside the conviction and sentence of late Bhutto. He also termed unfortunate the use of the words, “deliberate murder by the Supreme Court.”
Zafar said it would be discriminatory to revisit just one case no matter how high profile the victim of the miscarriage of justice. Instead, he said, parliament should frame a law to deal with all cases of miscarriage of justice as has been done in the UK, Canada, Norway and many other countries.
While describing the Bhutto he knew who had joined him in the United Nations during the 1965 war to deliver the fiery speech that turned him into a leader of the people, Zafar said the former prime minister was a political animal, well versed in the art of surviving in a jungle where tigers were abound. Although he acknowledged Bhutto as a great leader and his hanging as a national tragedy, he said revisiting his case would be an exercise in futility.
Building his argument in this respect, Zafar equated Bhutto with the civilisation of Mohenjodaro, a relic of the past. “This revisiting is like the tour of the ruins of Mohenjodaro with the help of a qualified guide; the visit will indeed inform the visitor that Mohenjodaro represented the epic of the Indus Civilisation at the height of its urbanisation but will not provide a satisfactory answer to how the vibrant city ultimately died,î he said.
Zafar disclosed that he was the first official sent to the United Nations at the height of the 1965 war with India, only to be joined later by Bhutto. “When the war of 1965 broke out between India and Pakistan, I was deputed to the United Nations to present the brief on behalf of Pakistan to the Security Council,î Zafar said. ìMr. Bhutto joined me later when Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire. He delivered a fine speech. All this gave me a chance to get to know the man, that is, the late Mr ZulfiKar Ali Bhutto.”
Explaining Article 186 of the Constitution that deals with advisory jurisdiction, Zafar said this jurisdiction couldnít provide a remedy sought by the President through his reference. Also the fact remains, he explained further, that Babar Awan had confirmed more than once before the apex court that the president does not want a verdict setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against Bhutto.
ìThe president is conscious of the principles of finality and of other provisions of the Constitution...that it is in the public interest to have finality in the legal proceedings and that when the Constitution provides a right of appeal to the accused under the Constitution, the right of appeal is always construed to mean a right to one appeal in any one case,î Zafar said, adding that the apex court is not entitled to review and revisit a judgment rendered by it a long ago which in all respect has become final.
Discussing the weak grounds of the reference that has quoted different articles to build its argument, Zafar termed them vague and said no specific instances (facts or assumed facts) had been cited relating to their violation in Bhutto’s trial. “Formulation of the question in such a general and vague form does not oblige the court to respond and answer the same. Indeed Article 10A was not even part of the Constitution at the time of trial/judgment of the case.”
The use of the words “deliberate murder by the Supreme Court” in the presidential reference is unfortunate, Zafar noted. Such a view cannot be formed by the court in these proceedings under Article 186 of the Constitution until and unless the whole case is reopened for rehearing and additional evidence is brought on record. “Advisory jurisdiction under Article 186 is not meant for this purpose,î he said.
He concluded that providing relief only to one person (no matter how important he was, and no matter what his status was and had been) would be discriminatory and in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution which speaks of equality of citizens.







Bhutto a relic of the past, SM Zafar tells SC