1634752114-0%2FZahir-Jaffer-(1)1634752114-0-640x480.webp&w=3840&q=100)
Zahir Jaffer seeks review of death penalty
The review petition, filed through Khawaja Haris, stated that "the hype created on the social media" constantly created hatred towards him throughout the investigation and the trial and even at appeal stage, thereby significantly breaching his fundamental right to fair trial and due process.
The review petition states that the May 20 judgment did not address the issue of unsoundness of mind or mental capacity of the petitioner that was raised before this court.
"It is submitted that the plea so raised on behalf of the petitioner is of immense significance, both as regards the validity of his trial as well as for purposes of determination of the petitioner's culpability and/or quantum of sentence," says the petition.
"As such, leaving this matter undetermined has gravely prejudiced the interests of justice and the rights of the Petitioner as guaranteed by the Constitution in terms of Article 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution," it continues.
"It is submitted with respect, to have been influenced by a planned and sustained campaign launched on social media, inter alia, by the complainant, against the Petitioner in particular, and, as such, the learned trial Judge never made any effort to consider the Petitioner's plea within the framework of law."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Opposition 'bias claim' in civil awards sparks Senate uproar
The upper house of the parliament witnessed uproar on Friday as opposition lawmakers accused the government of politicising this year's civil awards by allegedly favouring ministers and treasury benches, while ignoring deserving figures. The Senate session, chaired by Chairman Yousaf Raza Gillani, turned heated after he announced that several cabinet members and senators had been conferred national honours on August 14. Opposition members demanded disclosure of the criteria used for selection. Among the awardees were Ishaq Dar, Mohsin Naqvi, Musadik Malik, Azam Nazeer Tarar, Faisal Sabzwari, Senator Sherry Rehman, Senator Bushra Anjum, Ahsan Iqbal and Ahad Cheema. Irfan Siddiqui and Sarmad Ali are to receive their awards on March 23 next year. Senator Falak Naz Chitrali questioned, "What war did Atta Tarar fight?" while Senator Humayun Mohmand sarcastically remarked that "the designer of the war, Nawaz Sharif, has not been awarded." PTI's Senator Faisal Javed said party social media activists had countered Indian propaganda "day and night" but were ignored, accusing the government of "destroying the sanctity" of the honours. Defending the awards, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said martyrs and heroes of the Marka-e-Haq had been recognised, including those who lost their homes. He said some senators had "fought on diplomatic fronts abroad" and thanked PTI's social media workers for their online role in the campaign. The atmosphere grew tense when Senator Faisal Javed raised the omission of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's picture from official Independence Day advertisements, displaying the founder's picture on the Senate floor. "Explain, or we will not let this House run," he warned. Tarar expressed ignorance of the matter, called the omission "hurtful" and promised an inquiry. The House later unanimously adopted a resolution lauding the founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution and the armed forces. Earlier, Senator Zeeshan Khanzada criticised that while prisoners often receive sentence remissions on August 14, PTI leaders were instead handed "10-year jail terms like Bata sale rates." Separately, Senator Kamran Murtaza voiced concern over the suspension of mobile internet across 36 districts of Balochistan and alleged closure of rail, road and air links, warning of damage to Pakistan's image. Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry clarified that only mobile internet services had been suspended from August 6 to 31 due to "credible security threats" under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganisation) Act, 1996. He said telephone lines, airline operations, and road and rail links remained functional. "These measures are taken in specific areas facing threats, not across unrelated regions," he said, citing past terror attacks in the province, including on the Jaffar Express and the Army Public School in Khuzdar. On concerns over prepaid internet packages, Dr Chaudhry pledged to take up the matter with the concerned ministry, assuring that unused credit during the suspension period would be carried forward to the next month. The session was adjourned till Monday evening.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SJC dismisses complaints against CEC, ECP members
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) dismissed complaints against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja, and members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) – Nisar Ahmed Durrani and Shah Muhammad Jatoi. According to a press release, uploaded on the Supreme Court website on Friday; 'Complaint No. 532/2021/SJC, 557/2022/SJC, and 563/2022/SJC against the Chief Election Commissioner, Sikandar Sultan Raja, and Members of the Election Commission of Pakistan, Nisar Ahmed Durrani and Shah Muhammad Jatoi, have been dismissed by the Supreme Judicial Council in its meetings held on 8 November 2024 and 13 December 2024.' Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) General Secretary Omar Ayub on July 27, 2024, had filed a complaint against the CEC, Raja, and the ECP members before the SJC for violating the constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court's verdicts. The complaint said that the ECP has violated and breached its constitutional duties, obligations and responsibilities to conduct elections honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law and to guard against corrupt practices. It requested the immediate removal of the CEC and the ECP members due to serious allegations of misconduct, including pre-poll, poll day and post-poll riggings. It was alleged in the complaint that the CEC and the ECP members have breached Article 224 of constitution by not holding elections to the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies of Punjab and KPK within 90 and have also acted contrary to Article 189 in openly defying the judgements dated 01.03.2023 and 04.04.2023 of the Supreme Court directing ECP to hold elections within 90 days. By declining to perform its primary obligation of conducting elections within the timeline devised by the Constitution, and refusing to obey the orders of the Supreme Court, ECP not only acted illegally but this proves that ECP had unconstitutional objectives to fulfill. The ECP executed a grand scheme to disqualify former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan, and removed him as chairman of PTI, thereby, disabling him from participating in politics and damaging PTI as a political party and then to 'disqualify' PTI altogether from contesting the elections. The ECP continuing with the intention of harming and damaging PTI through illegal orders, decided that the reserved seats for women and minorities shall not be given to PTI but shall be allocated to other political parties proportionately. Along with the attempt to keep Imran Khan out of politics through illegal orders, the ECP decided to directly attack PTI and make it dysfunctional. For this purpose, ECP executed the plan to reject the Intra-Party Election of PTI and take away its symbol for the general elections. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Refusal to form full court draws flak for CJP
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi speaks at a conference at the Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad on July 25, 2025. SCREENGRAB Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after the minutes of a three-member Supreme Court Committee revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The SC committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Akhtar — had ordered the petitions be listed for hearing before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued that the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 judges are not consulted?" asked a senior lawyer, while speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committeeas it then wasmade a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. ''I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," Jaferii added. Advocate Asad Rahim Khan said the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciarynot to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the court to do about it? For or against, the judges decide according to their consciences, and the law is settled. Again, that is their job," said the advocate. He said the greatest judicial regression in 30 years — where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud — can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. "The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion." Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said it would have been just, fair and proper that 26th Amendment cases were listed for hearing prior to the meeting of the newly formed Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) which appointed a constitutional bench. The Amendment came on October 21, 2024 and former CJP Qazi Faez Isa retired on October 26, 2024. Rana said the CJP Afridi was appointed under the new constitutional dispensation. Thus any challenge to the 26 Amendment on any ground is now virtually impossible. "On the other hand when the 95th Amendment was challenged in India, the Indian Supreme Court did not hold the meeting of the country's judicial commission prior to the case fixation and the Indian SC, later, struck down that amendment," he added. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph 3 of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that the SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. "The matter should have been discussed in a full court meeting because the opinion of the majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," he said. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. "The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in outright violation of law," he added. Since November last year, the constitutional bench has been unable to decide the fate of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of the constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges have been elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for Nov 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
