ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said on Wednesday the president's reference seeking review of the controversial death sentence handed down to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was an extremely important one because the entire world was observing how the Supreme Court was handling it.

Presiding over an 11-judge bench hearing the presidential reference under its advisory jurisdiction, the chief justice said that Ramsey Clark, a well-known American jurist, had once told him that the verdict against Mr Bhutto was a “bad judgment”.

Many professionals around the world had criticised the verdict, he said. Pointing towards Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, the chief justice remarked: “We are really thankful to the president for sending the reference under the laws which give him the right (to do so).”

He added that the apex court was hearing the reference in a highly professional and organised manner.

From the records it appeared that Mr Bhutto's execution was in violation of high court rules, said Attorney General Haq. Therefore, it was the duty of the court to consider the questions raised in the reference, he argued.

Under the rules, he said, a convict was supposed to be executed no less than seven days and no more than 21 days after the issuance of the death warrant. “However, Mr Bhutto was executed hastily.”

In Mr Bhutto's case, the Lahore High Court (LHC) acted as the trial court even though high courts were meant to be appellate forums, Mr Haq said. Because Mr Bhutto's right to a fair trial was violated it was incumbent upon the Supreme Court to provide justice.

Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja said that if he was part of the bench that handed down the sentence against Mr Bhutto he might have concurred with the dissenting judges. “But here we are concerned with a (different) set of constitutional provisions.”

Punjab Advocate General Khwaja Haris told the court that the record of the complaint filed by Ahmed Raza Kasuri on July 13, 1977, against Mr Bhutto could not be traced and that he had asked the authorities concerned to file a report on the issue.

At this, Justice Javed Iqbal observed that the private complaint had been kept pending with the division bench of LHC headed by Justice (retd) K.M. Samdani.

Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany said the attorney general should build his arguments around the role of the approver which led to the execution of the accused. Mr Haq should assist the court in deciding whether a corroborator could be executed on the basis of evidence provided by the approver, he said.

Meanwhile, S.M. Zafar — one of the 10 amici curiae (friends of the court) appointed to assist it — submitted in advance and in writing his arguments.

In his arguments he has suggested that the court should urge the government to frame a “proper law” for rehearing and reconsidering cases in which real miscarriages of justice took place. The cases in which additional evidence is required and the ones in which bias affected the outcome may also be revisited under this law.

According to Mr Zafar, an elaborate machinery needs to be put in place so that before sending the cases to courts an independent body (such as a review commission) may examine them. Under such an arrangement, opportunity should be provided to all the affected people to present their cases for review.

Mr Zafar is of the view that all those people who were adversely affected due to the country's chequered judicial history should get the same treatment. Providing relief to only one affected person would be discriminatory and in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which speaks of equality of citizens.