We all knew Ansar Abbasi is capable of angling news and information to his liking but he has left all of us to stand and applaud him. While the whole nation is recovering from the loss in the semi-finals, the man stuck to his task to “review” the reference made available to him by his friends in the Supreme Court. He did the same work of copying text from the reference to beef up his “report” and find an angle that can be used against the government.
The angling in his “report” is that:
- Zardari has talked about Islamic justice, as if he has never talked about it before
- As Zardari has talked about Islamic Justice and concept of accountability therefore he has surrendered his immunity under the constitution
Honestly, Ansar Abbasi is amazing. He will off course not talk about the role of his god-fathers i.e. the judiciary in sending the great ZAB to the gallows and the tough time given to Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari but he has to find an angle to somehow be on the front page.
Let’s be straight. The President has immunity under the constitution of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and not the ABBASI-CHAUDHRY REPUBLIC. Say whatever you want Ansar Abbasi. Create angles that are never there but are visible to you and your one eyed anti-christ sitting in court room number 1, one more attempt to subvert the process of accountability of judges who aided and abetted in sending ZAB to the gallows, the PPP and its jiyalas will take the opportunists to task. There is a limit to being acceding. That level of patience and bending backwards has been breached.
Chief Justice, do your work and provide justice to the murder of history in which your fraternity is equally responsible.
Zardari invokes accountability, for first time
By Ansar Abbasi
The News, April 4, 2011
ISLAMABAD: In his reference sent to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to revisit the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, President Asif Ali Zardari has surrendered, perhaps innocently, his prolonged fight for constitutional immunity from criminal and corruption cases by referring to the Islamic teachings to prove the point that no one is above accountability.
Sent to the apex court under his own signature, while the reference focuses on the case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and talks of the controversial role of the past judges in the ZAB case, it shows that President Zardari has taken the clear position that “No one is above accountability in Islam”. The reference said that since the judges violated their oath by deciding the ZAB case under coercion, therefore, it attracts Article 6 of the Constitution, which deals with abrogation of the Constitution.
An unsigned copy of the draft reference, available with The News, shows President Zardari, is banking on Islamic jurisprudence and principles to seek justice for the founding father of the Pakistan People’s Party, who was sent to the gallows following what the President calls a “wide range conspiracy”.
Briefly referring to the conspiracy and the trial, which was said to have been conducted by the LHC in a highly objectionable manner that led to the judicial murder of ZAB, the president said in the reference: “I, as the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in order to uphold the dignity of the court, supremacy of the Constitution and law, feel constrained to refer a few questions of law which are of paramount public importance yet remain to be finally determined and answered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
The first point raised in the reference is: “The law of approver and criminal conspiracy is admittedly against the injunctions of Islam. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the occasion of (Hujja tul Wida) pronounced: ‘Beware, every culprit is responsible for offence committed by him; Beware, the father is not responsible for the offence committed by his son nor son is answerable for the offence committed by his father.’ (Ibn Maja and Tirmidi as reported in Seerat Al-Nabi Volume-II by Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi, page 153). Admittedly, absence of the accused from the scene of occurrence could not at all constitute personal liability.”
The second point raised in the reference is: “Earlier, no accused had been convicted and sentenced to obtain death solely on the testimony of an approver. The Hon’ble Suprme Court of Pakistan has again disapproved the testimony of an approver in the case of ‘Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. State’…..”
The third point discussed in the reference talks of accountability and, perhaps innocently, ruled out any exception to anyone from accountability as per the Islamic teachings. This particular paragraph reads: “Intricate questions of public importance are involved in the matter. None is above accountability in Islam and more so a Qazi. Determination of the question of accountability or at least a correction of error amounts to introspective accountability…”
In the same paragraph, the reference said: “His (ZAB) totally illegal death sentence and his execution at the hands of tyrant dictator with the help of handpicked judges is a black spot on the democratic face of Pakistan.”
Interestingly, in the NRO judgment the Supreme Court, without acknowledging any immunity to anyone, had referred to the Islamic teachings to prove that everyone irrespective of his stature or position is equal before law.
The fourth point raised in the reference is: “Whether the Supreme Court was acting within the four corners of law (in ZAB case) while deciding the appeal by a Bench which was not duly constituted after the absence of two members……. The Hon’ble Court was legally and morally duty-bound to fill the vacancies.”
The fifth point is about the bias of the judges. “In the case in hand, bias in the minds of judges was floating on the face of the record. A bias in the mind of judge results in vitiation of the proceedings….” The reference said that Shaheed ZAB bitterly complained before the Supreme Court that he had not been given a fair trial in the LHC.
The reference said that admission of former CJP Justice (retd) Nasim Hasan Shah on print and electronic media that the decision of ZAB’s appeal was under coercion, does not leave any doubt in the mind of a sane and prudent person that it was a judicial murder which was decided and executed by dictator General Zia ul Haq. This admission, the reference said, is tantamount to violation of constitutional oath of office of the CJP and judges of the superior judiciary. The reference said that as such, Article 6 of the Constitution is fully attracted in this case.
The reference also pointed out that Justice Ghulam Safdar Shah, who wrote the dissenting judgment in ZAB case, was subsequently witch-hunted and ultimately he had to leave the country in miserable conditions.
The reference raised the question: “Whether it was legally justified to award capital punishment to Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the absence of any evidence worth its name, and merely on the basis of totally cooked up and manoeuvred story which never stood the test of routine cross-examination?”
It also questioned: “Whether both the Lahore High Court as well as Supreme Court were justified in awarding and maintaining the death sentence to Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on the basis of so-called threat to complainant which was blown out of proportion?”
It asked: “Was it not legal duty of the regime to conduct an independent and fair judicial inquiry into the incident before starting criminal prosecution against Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?”
“Was it safe administration of justice to award capital punishment to an accused of conspiracy for murder against whom the essential ingredients of conspiracy were not proved through reliable evidence?”
Another question raised in the reference is: “Whether justice can be seen to have been done in this case while the appellant was deprived of his right of appeal before the High Court, being tried directly by the High Court?”
It also asked: “Had he (ZAB) been tried by a Session Court, the trial judge would have been legally bound to follow the case law developed up to the time of trial whereas the High Court ignored the same altogether. In this case up to the time of trial and conviction there was absolutely no precedent of conviction and sentence of capital punishment on the testimony of approver. Never in the judicial history of this country murder trial of an accused was conducted by the High Court in its original jurisdiction thereby denying the accused a valuable right of appeal before the High Court…….”
It added that the very fact that three Hon’ble judges out of seven gave dissenting view whereas four handpicked judges acted under the dictates of tyrant dictator makes it imperative for the Supreme Court of Pakistan to re-examine the law on the point of approver and criminal conspiracy. It also said: “The question of bias needs to be re-visited by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the light of its judgment in case of Asif Ali Zardari vs The State [PLD 2001 SC page 685].”
The reference also pointed out that the learned HC while conducting the trial in hand did not take into consideration a material fact that prosecution was not in possession of any evidence of conversation between the approver and the appellant. Surprisingly, this fact was also ignored by the Supreme Court while appraising the evidence in appellate jurisdiction.
The president, in the concluding paragraph of the reference, made it clear that the government is neither interested in any type of vengeance against anybody nor believes in revenge but has filed the reference as the unprecedented incident of judicial murder of an international face of Pakistan’s twice elected Prime Minister and father of the first Muslim woman Prime Minister and the father-in-law of the President of Pakistan cannot be left unchecked under the dictates of justice, fair play and history.