Presidential reference in ZA Bhutto case: Zulfikar Jr, Fatima’s statement exposes Kasuri’s role

KARACHI: The concise statement of Fatima Bhutto and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Jr., granddaughter and grandson of PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, submitted to the Supreme Court in a presidential reference seeking the apex court’s opinion on the death sentence awarded to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali A Bhutto, has cast aspersions on what appears to be an embarrassing role of complainant Ahmed Raza Kasuri, son of slain Nawaz Ahmed Khan.

The statement says that around 18 months after Kasuri lodged an FIR on November 11, 1974, against Bhutto for being allegedly involved in the murder of his father, he rejoined the PPP in April 1976.

The statement also criticised the LHC and SC judgments of 1978 and 1979, respectively, in the case, showing how the hundreds of pages of both judgments were reduced to a mere fig leaf by the minority opinion given by Justice Dorab Patel and Justice Safdar Shah, followed by Justice Muhammad Haleem.

Para 24 of the concise statement says: “It is respectfully submitted that the 144 pages of the LHC Judgment, The State v. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Others, PLD 1978 Lahore 523 and the 352 pages of the majority Judgment of the SC Judgment in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State, PLD 1979 SC 53 are reduced to a fig leaf by the minority opinions rendered by Justice Dorab Patel and Justice Safdar Shah followed by Justice Muhammad Haleem.”

About of the role of Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri, it says, “It is worthwhile to at least consider the role of one of the leading protagonists in this case, Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri. A founder member of PPP and elected MNA on a PPP ticket in 1970, Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri soon developed differences with Mr. Bhutto and joined the opposition Tehreek e Istiqlal party.

“On 11.11.1974, Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri lodged FIR No. 402/1974 within hours of the murderous attack which led to the unfortunate death of his father late Nawab Ahmed Khan. In the FIR, he ‘expressed his suspicion…that because he had remained the most virulent critic of the person and policies of ZAB the attack had been made on him due to political reasons.”

The concise statement further reads: “Yet, in less than two years of lodging the FIR, in April 1976, Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri rejoined the PPP. He continued to remain a member of and attended the meetings of Tehrik-i-Fikr-i-Quaid-e-Awam, an organization meant for propagating the political philosophy of Bhutto until April 1977. Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri even applied for the PPP ticket to contest the general elections of 1977 but was denied.

“Mr. Kasuri’s letter to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto dated 8.6.1976 is particularly revealing, when he writes ‘I take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude for nominating me as a member of Pakistan Delegation the participated in this years ‘Spring Season’ of Inter Parliamentary Union held at Mexico City, Mexico’ and goes on to claim that ‘we found that your image as a Scholar Statesman is emerging and getting wide acceptance.”

The statement mentions: “In another letter dated 30.1.1977, Mr. Kasuri writes ‘Earlier I have requested over half a dozen times to your M.S. for an interview with you, but to this date I have not received any reply from him. I wonder whether Major General Imtiaz Ali ever made it known to you? I am taking this liberty to write to you and to request you personally to kindly grant me an interview at your earliest convenience. I have to discuss many matters, which concern the party and government.’ He ends the letter with the hope ‘I trust this letter finds you and Begum Bhutto in best of health, happiness and prosperity.

“Yet, the same Mr. Ahmed Reza Kasuri who waxed eloquence on the person of Bhutto until a few months earlier, became the lead prosecution witness against Mr. Bhutto as soon as General Zia ul Haq proclaimed Martial Law on 5.7.1977 and trial was entrusted in the hands of Chief Justice Mushtaq Hussain of the Lahore High Court.”

Regarding confessions of Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, the statement says: “During proceedings in the Supreme Court, Mr. Bhutto’s lawyer, Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar, in challenging the LHC Judgment, argued that the ‘trial stands vitiated as the President Judge of the Bench, namely, Mr. Justice Mushtaq Hussain was biased against the appellant.’ Although, such argument did not find favor with the Supreme Court, one of the Judges in the majority who upheld the LHC Judgment, Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, made startling revelations in a television interview on Geo TV in the program Jawabdeh.

“In the Jawabdeh interview, Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah says that Chief Justice Mushtaq Hussain saw Bhutto as his enemy and that he should not have been on the Bench of the Lahore High Court for the Bhutto trial. However, this can only be classified as the opinion of Justice Nasim Hasan Shah and nothing may turn on it. But, if one would consider the added revelations about the surreptitious meeting initiated by Justice Mushtaq Hussain after the Lahore High Court Judgment to convince Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah to join the Supreme Court Bench deciding Mr. Bhutto’s Appeal, the unfortunate stain on the Supreme Court’s Judgment is plainly evident.

“More importantly, Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah in the aforesaid GEO interview in relation to his own self made the following startling confession: a. ‘Although there was no interference in Mr. Bhutto’s case as far as he was concerned [a fact he contradicts in his own book as stated below], it is possible that they had asked Chief Justice Anwar ul Haq.’ b. ‘I could have given a lesser sentence as I suggested to Yahya Bakhtriar to argue on that point. There was some weakness on this on our part. Yahya Bakhtiar was adamant for acquittal and he annoyed us. His [Bhutto] life could have been saved. Later I have regretted this.’ c. ‘It is better to be flexible in a couple of case where army is interested and to save one’s seat. Judges get scared due to their properties and the sons employment.”

The concise statement further says: “More damning confessions are made by Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah in his autobiography titled ‘Memoirs and Reflections’ published by Alhamra Publishing in 2002. Some of these are reproduced below: a. ‘Mr. Bhutto filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the death sentence. At that time I was still an ad hoc Judge of the Supreme Court. As such the possibility of such appeal coming up for hearing before me was remote. Such important matters were never placed for hearing before ad hoc judges and it was normally a bench of permanent judges of the Supreme Court which would hear them. This normal practice was not followed in this case.

“It was sometime in the beginning of April 1978 while I was getting ready to attend an evening function, I was informed that Mr. Justice Mushtaq Hussain, Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court [the Judge who led the LHC Bench, the person who Mr. Bhutto claimed was biased against him, the person who Justice Nasim Hasan Shah says in the Geo interview ‘hated Bhutto’] and Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada, Attorney General, had come to see me. I went to the guest lounge to meet them and after exchange of usual civilities the point of their visit was explained. They wanted me to sit on the appellate bench being constituted to hear Mr. Bhutto’s appeal in the Supreme Court. I told them that I was an ad hoc Judge and it was therefore not proper for me to sit on the bench. I also felt it was wrong for my two guests, being interested parties, to broach this subject with me. They were fully aware of this situation but still insisted that I must sit on the bench. I was not agreeable. However, after a brief discussion I made it clear that I shall do as directed by the Chief Justice, knowing that the Chief Justice was a man of judicial integrity and these two worthies, inspite of their personal relationship with the Chief Justice, would not take this matter up with him. However a few days later the Chief Justice informed me that the full court strength was nine and he would like to this strength, and since I was the ninth judge, I shall have to sit on the bench for the appeal hearing.’ c. ‘With four judges (hailing from Punjab) apparently in favor of upholding the judgement of the High Court convicting Mr. Bhutto and sentencing him to death, while the remaining three Judges being of different viewpoint the responsibility and strain on the shoulders of Chief Justice Anwar ul Haq was overwhelming…. Consequently it was suggested to me that I might have a detailed talk with Justice Dorab Patel regarding the case and the general situation in country. Being the senior most Judge of the faction favouring the view that Mr. Bhutto was not guilty, he was in ideal position to handle the situation.

The proposal put forward by Anwar ul Haq CJ was that a unanimous verdict may be handed down by the Court so as to obviate all provincial acrimony. According to him the fairest solution would be if the Punjab judges could be persuaded to agree to the awarding of a lesser sentence to Mr. Bhutto (thus saving his life) while the pro Mr. Bhutto judges might agree to hold him guilty of the death of Nawab Ahmad Khan.’ d. ‘…I readily agreed to approach Justice Dorab Patel for ascertaining his views regarding the proposal…. Dorab Patel was not at all agreeable to the proposition made by Anwar ul Haq C.J. According to him the question of a judge’s judgement was a matter of his conscience and this may not be discussed...I came home very disappointed.’ e. ‘I observed from the Bench that Martial Law is not unlike a military occupation of the courts, we are helpless. But once this occupation is over it is our duty to mete out justice.”