News
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Kasuri asks SC to dismiss ZAB reference case* Says ZAB case is closed and past transaction, court can’t reopen it
By Hasnaat Malik
ISLAMABAD: Ahmed Raza Kasuri has contended that the court has no jurisdiction to reopen the ZAB case under Article 186 of the constitution; therefore, the presidential reference should be dismissed.
Ahmed Raza Kasuri, who had registered a murder case against Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, on Saturday, submitted his reply in the Supreme Court regarding the presidential reference, filed by the federation under Article 186 of the constitution for revisiting ZAB case.
In his 72 pages reply, Kasuri also asked the Supreme Court to issue notices to those judges or their legal representatives who had awarded death sentence to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Kasuri contended that if the court gives its opinion in this case that the judgement of the Supreme Court was a result of a bad trial, in that case the brother judges of this court would be stigmatised in the eyes of public at large. Therefore, “Would it not be a requirement of justice and fair play that notices should be given to them if they are alive or to their legal representatives if they are dead, to defend their dignity, honour, judgement, trial and their judicial conduct,” he said.
He also mentioned that the SC full court had already rejected the review petitions unanimously regarding ZAB murder case, therefore, the case could not be reopened. “Involving question of law and facts do not fall within the ambit of Article 186 of the constitution,” he said.
“That instant case falls within the purview of settled principle of law i.e. ‘closed and past transaction.’ Since the administration of justice heavily leaned in favour of ‘Finality’ hence the litigation, which is closed and past, cannot be reopened, indirectly through Article 186 of the constitution. Beside word ‘Revisit’ is unknown both to law and the constitution. One does not find any mention of the word revisit in any legal dictionary,” Kasuri said in his statement.
The president is an interested party, it will not be possible to file reference concerning his family affairs, since President Asif Ali Zardari is son-in-law of Bhutto. He stated that President Zardari is also the holder of the office of the PPP co-chairman, therefore, the reference to the Supreme Court is a reference by the PPP chief and not by the president of Pakistan. The nature of the reference speaks for itself that ZAB being the founder of the PPP is sought to be cleansed of the slur on his name that he was convicted and hanged for having committed a murder.
“The sole object of filing this instant reference is to remove the stigma of conviction, which adversely effects the family members of ZAB, and in particular the PPP.” It is not the constitutional obligation of the court to remove the stigma of the family by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 186 of the constitution.
He further contended that advisory jurisdiction of this court, on an issue where the court had already given its judgement, is not tenable keeping in view the interpretation of Article 186 of the constitution and that was stated by Supreme Court of India in an identical matter (AIR 1992 SC, 522). Article 143, of the Indian constitution is identical with Article 186 of the Pakistani constitution.
The counsel said that president was constitutionally empowered to seek advice/opinion of the apex court and the court had to answer the reference but subject to conditions that the matter would be a live issue and not previously decided by this court.
He warned that exercise of examining the whole record would open Pandora’s box and would lift floodgates of futile litigation, which would result in bringing “Judicial Tsunami,” in courts.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk