Daily Times

After much ado, “history” stands corrected as the Supreme Court, on Wednesday announced its much-anticipated opinion on the long-drawn-out presidential reference to revisit the 1979 judgement that had sent none other than the prime minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to the gallows. The highest court in the land has acknowledged that the conditions of a fair trial and due process were not met in the case.

As visuals of his very emotional grandson and political heir as chairman of PPP remained in the limelight all day long, it would be naive to celebrate this as a personal or a single party’s success. The decision is rightly being hailed as a watershed moment in legal history, signalling a potential shift towards accountability and transparency in the judicial system. In addition to vindicating Mr Bhutto, whose legal team continued to make serious reservations against fabricated evidence, the political nature of proceedings and lack of due process till the day he was hanged, the Supreme Court’s posthumous conviction overture might be the first step towards rectifying past injustices.

Politicians and legal experts across Pakistan have emphasized the importance of upholding the principles of justice and fairness, regardless of political considerations. If, after today, the public looks towards those sitting in the highest echelons of the judiciary to be more careful in their proceedings, they would signal a renewed trust in the capacity to stand as a shield between them and any injustice. There’s no denying that the bench never used the controversial judgement as precedent largely because it also looked at the conduct and procedure of Bhutto’s death penalty hearings with suspicion. But to discreetly walk another path without even casually mentioning what had gone wrong and to sit in front of the entire nation and acknowledge a gross error on its own part are two entirely different acts. Perhaps, this unanimous opinion would go a long way in looking at our history from the right perspective. Since wishes are not horses, we did not see the court actually go the last mile and finally declare whether the former prime minister was guilty of the crime he was accused of. *