Pakistan People’s Party Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari stated that the approval of the 26th Constitutional Amendment was only possible due to Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and it would not have been achievable under any other chief justice.
In an interview with the BBC, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said that the approval of the 26th Constitutional Amendment was a significant accomplishment, one that could not have been possible in the presence of any other chief justice.
He added that only one person in Pakistan’s history was willing to submit to the authority of Parliament and the Constitution, even at the cost of his own power.
He was someone who could withstand the pressure from fellow judges who might have tried to provoke him, arguing that it was not his issue but rather a matter of judicial power.
He further said that the 26th Constitutional Amendment had been politicised, and there was an attempt to make the whole process controversial.
A certain lobby had connected the military courts with the metaphor of a “black snake.”
Bilawal claimed that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) wanted to amend Article 8 of the Constitution to allow military courts to try those who target military installations and ordinary citizens.
He mentioned that due to a Supreme Court decision, there were obstacles in trying the individuals involved in the May 9 incidents in military courts. Their proposal was to change the wording from “members of the armed forces” to just “armed forces.”
The government wanted this change to have retrospective effect, including military installations and posts under the jurisdiction of military courts. However, both Bilawal and Maulana Fazlur Rehman objected to including military posts. This single word was turned into a “black snake,” around which an attempt was made to politicise the entire process.
He also said that if the country is to move away from the path of political revenge, the first step must be taken by Imran Khan.
Bilawal Bhutto further commented that the decision regarding Article 63-A had political motives behind it. If such decisions had been implemented, the 26th Constitutional Amendment would have faced difficulties.
He clarified that it is not fair to associate the 26th Constitutional Amendment with a single individual. Opponents politicised a respected judge and the entire process.
