Of justice and most favorite child of law

Will opposition get the ‘Wild West’ style revenge it so desperately craves?

Ours is a society where law of the land is used to cut one’s opponent to size and keep one’s head up with this grand feat of one-upmanship

 

The briefest definition in Black’s Law Dictionary is of justice. ‘Fair and proper administration of law,’ is how the most revered, most cited dictionary in the realm of law defines one of the most debated, widely contested ideals that has forged the history of man and defined the structures of civilisations for eons. The aforementioned definition was formulated, framed and penned down back in 17th century yet it has kept its sheen and relevance till present day. Let us make ourselves a tad bit uncomfortable and ask why a 2,000 pages heavy tome of sagacity and condensed legal acumen opts extraordinary brevity when it came to define the purpose of all laws i.e. justice?

Here goes the answer. All the laws, be them civil or criminal or of any other brand or hue, aim at only one thing; that is justice. The laws are the stairs or the crutches, if you find the analogy of stairs a bit too clichéd, which assist one to a palace named ‘Realm of Fairness where Just souls dwell’. The legal thinkers of yore thought it best to define an eternal concept like justice as succinctly, as tersely, as possible. The rationale behind such utmost briefness certainly paid off in the long run as the definition still brightens one brain to grasp the concept in entirety. These four words ‘fair’, ‘proper’, ‘administration’ and ‘law’, if implemented without bent towards the mighty and sans prejudice towards weak, promise any society an Elysium that fellow godly folks strive to locate in skies and beyond.

Ours is a society where law of the land is used to cut one’s opponent to size and keep one’s head up with this grand feat of one-upmanship. In other words, we use law to deny justice to whomsoever we consider a foe.

Our fathers were lulled, by the one who hanged a certain Zulfi Bhutto, with economic prosperity and abundance in their younger days. The price was silence and docility

 

The unending, always in flux, downright gooey spectacle of TOR formation for Panama Commission resurrected the lawman I hid somewhere far deep in the recesses from where I wished it won’t rear its ugly head again. And that is my postmortem report of the ongoing sad saga of Panamagate TOR formation committee.

In the aftermath of the notorious Panama Papers, the boredom-struck opposition, some of whom were licking many bruises from a failed dharna and reminiscing about all the attempts to topple government that went awry, was not only leased a new life but also got a joint cause to root for.

Much claims have been pronounced and blames made in the aftermath of so-called Panama Papers by opposition parties. One among them was the formation of Commission to look into the matter. When government gave its consent, the opposition thundered for the Terms of Reference (TORs) that will delineate the extent of commission. When the government okayed that only then came the ulterior intent to the fore, our opposition was aiming, all along, to eliminate PM from the power equation. To an observant eye it was clear from the onset that the fuss over TORs was to derail the democratic project by singling out of PM Nawaz and then sending him home, paving way for new elections. The chanting of almighty dicta of Truth, Accountability or Justice was nothing but a smokescreen to a minus-one setup cleverly devised by opposition on the backing of powers-that-be.

At the time of writing this column, the seventh round of talks between opposition and government looks all set to wither and die. The opposition’s monomaniacal demand of narrowing down the scope of commission to dish out ‘justice’ to PM before all slays the very aim that justice seeks to achieve. The commission must weigh, gauge and consider all and sundry with the same eye. The guilty must be punished, but before the punishment he must be dealt a ‘fair’ and ‘just’ hand.

The opposition, as the word implies, hankers after what the government has. That is power, dearest sirs and ma’ams. All over the world opposition is defined by the emotions of envy and frustration and acts like nit-picking, protests, hyperbole posing as a serious contender, sloganeering and telling everyone that ‘if’ things were in its hand, the world would be a lot better place for all walks of life.

We, the proud Pakistanis, have been deceived since long. The same script unfurls where opposition seeks elimination of government, with the backing of powers-that-be when the folks we voted in gets kicked out. It is never the opposition that takes its place. No, sir. Never.

Our fathers were lulled, by the one who hanged a certain Zulfi Bhutto, with economic prosperity and abundance in their younger days. The price was silence and docility. They remained meek and mum. What they actually got is what we presently have. A precarious society and a state that no other state finds trustworthy. Beware of the one who snatches what you have on the prospect of what you will get once you part with it.

Dear reader, if you are still reading this long, dull, quasi-academic diatribe of mine, allow me to conclude with a legal maxim that lies at the rock bottom of our current justice system. ‘Accused is the most favourite child of law and every benefit of doubt goes to him,’ well here we are, folks. The boot-N-league-out-of-the-arena plan seems to lose its legs once one solemnly ponders over the maxim. Haa, fellow folks, I wish thee grand luck with your fight against the most favourite child of law. Farewell and Godspeed.