Pakistan under Zia
Sir: In his article, 'Bhutto Betrayed', published in the Spectator on 25 March, Mr George Hutchinson found the Lahore High Court guilty of lack of integrity and impartiality without, it seems, having heard the judgment. He may have formed a different opinion after reading it.
The complaint was launched by the aggrieved party, and not by the Government, the case was heard by a full bench of the Lahore High Court, consisting of five Judges, most of them appointed by the previous Government, the verdict was given unanimously and according to the civil law, which has remained on the statute book since Pakistan's establishment. An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court, and even the misgivings voiced by Mr Hutchinson will be tested during this hearing.
While voicing his lack of confidence in
the Supreme Court, even before the hearing of the appeal had begun, he probably did not take into consideration the fact that the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan have always maintained their independence and impartiality, even during the regimes of Ayub Khan and Yehya Khan, two military rulers, and Mr Bhutto, whom he himself described as an autocrat. Why should, then, these very courts be influenced by the Government of General Zia-ul-Haq which is interim and to which the Supreme Court itself has given legality for holding elections as soon as possible?
While I appreciate that his critical reaction to the High Court verdict would perhaps have been guided by his interest in Pakistan, his feelings against capital punishment and maybe his admiration of Mr Bhutto, I am also certain that he was not pleading that charges of murder should not lead to a trial and conviction if the accused happens to be a political leader. If it were so, what would happen to the 'equality in the eyes of law' and how would the rule of law be established?
M. Zubair Ali Counsellor, Embassy of Pakistan, 35 Lowndes Square, London SW1
Previous page
