14
The battlefronts were open, both in court and away from the courts. Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) General Ziaul Haq had returned from his trip to Saudi Arabia, insecurity was still in the air, canvassing for support trip to Saudi monarch, and leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) continued to work in various directions to have their leader set free.
On October 11, 1977, however, the full bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) formally charged Bhutto for murder. Former operations director, Mian Mohammad Abbas, and three junior officers of the Federal Security Force (FSF) were also charged for conspiring to kill Mian Ahmad Raza Kasuri on the night between November 10 and 11, 1974. According to the charge, the assassination attempt was botched, with the accused killing Ahmad Raza’s father, Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Kasuri, instead.
Away from the courts, the PPP pressed for the release of Bhutto and his colleagues through protest rallies held in Lahore and Islamabad. Some even offered themselves for arrest. There was an sentiment among the PPP leadership that by staging rallies at public places, they would build an impressive tempo which would force martial law authorities to set Bhutto free.
But not everyone agreed with the strategy; in fact, there was a division in the ranks of the PPP over agitation to secure Bhutto’s release. Some wanted to keep the movement low profile and possibly agree on certain terms and reach an agreement with the ruling junta. The other group, mostly comprising activists and young elements, wanted to build a strong show of street power, which in turn, would force the rulers to consider an out-of-courts settlement for Bhutto. The latter group was cognizant of the fact that their standpoint was fraught with use of force leading to harassment and punishments, and if the movement slowed down at any moment, the military government would crush the party.
With the Lahore High Court formally charging Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, divisions in the PPP begin to surface
Sensing some bitter reaction, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi summoned a press conference at his Karachi residence on October 17, arguing that the party had directed its workers and supporters to adopt a peaceful attitude and observe law and order. Jatoi claimed that elements staging protests were not PPP followers but were working against party interests.
Both cases — the murder case against Bhutto and the FSF officers and Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s petition — had begun to gather momentum.
The LHC hearings would be held in Lahore, while the SC hearings were in Rawalpindi. At almost every hearing in Lahore, PPP supporters would throng the street leading up to the court.
On October 18, Masood Mahmood, former director general of the FSF, recorded in his statement that the deposed prime minister had directed him to eliminate Ahmad Raza Kasuri. But when Bhutto heard that Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Kasuri had been killed instead, Bhutto became furious and abused him.
Bhutto denied the charge in Mahmood’s statement, claiming instead that he cared for Masood Mahmood, and that Madood’s wife had been sent abroad for medical treatment on state expenses during those days.
Meanwhile, with Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s case being taken up at the Supreme Court, Bhutto was brought from Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore to Sihala Rest House Rawalpindi on October 21 to facilitate his appearance in court.
At the first hearing on October 22, Bhutto thanked the court for allowing him to appear in person. He then proceeded to record his statement – a process that took about three hours, in which he lambasted both the military government and the chief justice of the LHC, Molvi Mushtaq Hussain. The court objected to his remarks about Justice Hussain, which according to the judges, were irrelevant to Nusrat Bhutto’s petition.
Bhutto continued arguing that Pakistan was passing through a serious crisis, and without the constitution, the country could neither preserve unity nor would it prosper. The deposed premier questioned how martial law could be accepted as an extra-constitutional measure, maintaining that sedition could not be equated with revolution.
At this stage, the court told Bhutto that the Supreme Court was not the proper forum to argue his political thought, and this kind of expression would not help him in the case either. The present case, the court said, was about his arrest and that of his colleagues under MLO 12.
Bhutto responded that if the constitution was abrogated, it would encourage separatist feelings. He said that framing the constitution with the consensus of all federating units had taken 30 long years.
When the deposed prime minister argued that accountability of government institutions should start from Independence Day, the court asked him whether he initiated the accountability process during his rule. Bhutto responded by saying that investigations should be undertaken about how military presidents had been looting the country.
Yahya Bakhtiar, advocate for Nusrat Bhutto, completed his arguments in the Nusrat Bhutto case by arguing that the martial law proclamation issued by Gen Zia was illegal, and that according to the constitution, Zia was a usurper. By extension, the detention of Bhutto and 10 other leaders under martial law was illegal too. Bakhtiar argued that the current set-up was not a revolution nor did Gen Zia have any authority to disqualify a candidate from the polls. Candidates could only be disqualified under the People’s Representation Act.
At the next hearing, on October 30, Attorney General Sharifuddin Pirzada appeared as law officer and concluded his arguments. Pirzada argued that massive rigging was carried out in the March elections, forcing citizens on to the streets. He claimed that the law and order situation had gone out of control to such an extent that the country had plunged into civil war. He upheld Gen Zia’s coup as a lawful act.
When A K Brohi, advocate for the federation, appeared before the court, the judges asked him how long it would take to hold elections in the current environment. Brohi said that a fixed date could not be furnished, but it would be two months after verdicts are handed on all pending cases in the courts.
A few days later, Bhutto filed his written statement to the SC. He held that the CMLA had no right to put the constitution in abeyance. He also reiterated that in an ideological state, no usurper was allowed to impose his will on the nation.
Meanwhile, in the murder case being heard at the LHC, Bhutto’s lawyer Dost Mohammad Awan filed an application on November 5 that he had no hope of justice from the bench that had been constituted by the acting chief justice, Justice Molvi Mushtaq Hussain.
Another application was filed in the Supreme Court too, that sought Bhutto’s release on bail. But the plea had not yet come under discussion, since it was hoped that the decision on Nusrat Bhutto’s petition would be announced soon.
All parties awaited clarity, not least Gen Zia and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Next week: Gen Zia versus the constitution
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, June 8th, 2014
