Justice and
British Citizen’s Imminent Hanging
By Siddique Malik
Louisville, KY
Eighteen years ago, Mirza
Tahir Hussain, a British-born teenager of Pakistani
descent arrived at the Islamabad airport on his
way to the village from where his parents had
migrated to the UK. He hired a taxi for this road
journey. On the way, the taxi driver tried to
rape him, and a fight ensued. The taxi driver’s
gun went off, killing him. Hussain, drove the
car with the body in it, to the nearest police
station, and told this story to the police. He
was arrested for murder. Subsequently, the courts
found him guilty of murder and he was given life-imprisonment.
Later, his sentence was turned into death sentence.
His judicial appeals have been rejected, and at
the age of 36, he will be hanged at the end of
Ramadan unless his plea for mercy is accepted
by the President of Pakistan.
The circumstances clearly reveal that Hussain
had no motivation or premeditation to kill the
taxi driver, and the story of this death being
the result of an accident or self-defense, seemed
credible. Also, Hussian had no criminal record
in the UK. So, why would he suddenly turn into
a killer in a foreign country? Besides, what happened
to the concept of the benefit of doubt? Clearly,
this was a case in which this concept should have
been invoked.
The courts in their wisdom and because of legal
technicalities may not have been able to take
the mitigating circumstances into consideration,
but this is exactly the situation for which Pakistan’s
constitution gives the president the power to
commute a death sentence.
Even in those judicial systems in which, an accused
is considered innocent until proven guilty, the
head of the executive, while considering death-row
inmates’ pleas for mercy, takes a deep look
at the mitigating circumstances that the courts
may not have considered for any reason. In Pakistan,
where an accused is considered guilty until proven
innocent, there should be tremendous burden on
the head of the executive to take mitigating circumstances
into account, while considering condemned prisoners’
mercy petitions.
Recently, President Musharraf said that he was
not going to stop this execution because he was
not a dictator and thus did not want to interfere
with a judicial judgment. I beg to differ with
the president. If he ignores these crying mitigating
circumstances, he will prove himself to be a dictator.
On the other hand, exercising his constitutional
powers to stop a punishment from becoming irreversible
will prove that he is aware of the responsibilities
that the Constitution places on him, and thus
is not a dictator. Using constitutional powers
can never be an affront to the courts because
courts basically protect and uphold the constitution.
Mr. President, for the sake of fairness and Pakistan’s
image, please commute this death sentence to the
time already served (18 years of agony for someone
whose ordeal started when he was 18, should be
enough punishment for an act of self-defense),
and allow the man to return to the UK.
Also, for the sake of equality, fairness and justice,
all those who have been sentenced to die because
the courts would or could not take into consideration
the mitigating circumstances surrounding the murder
for which they were convicted, should be granted
clemency. In a judicial vacuum, this is one of
the bounden duties of the head of state. If we
err, we must err on the side of life, not death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
