Without citing a single judgment throughout the entirety of their contentions, PTI still remains adamant on the fact that they have laid down a robust case
The year 2017 began with a contemplating gaze on the superior judiciary of Pakistan by the masses. The Panama proceedings, whose day to day hearings oscillate political as well as legal sentiments, continue to be the nucleus of the nation’s attention. While some spectators label this as a test for the judiciary in the interest of justice, what needs to be ascertained is the standard and criterion of justice.
Emotionally charged speeches do demand an immediate disqualification of the prime minister or perhaps even a clean chit, however, a clear lack of understanding and analysis of the law in question persists. The fate of the PM and his family is not the only query before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, what remains an integral part of the case is the development of constitutional legal jurisprudence and the precedent set following the verdict. So, one might agree that the Panama case does indeed pose a test for the judiciary but altogether in a different context than the one perceived by Imran Khan or Sheikh Rasheed for that matter.
Without citing a single judgment throughout the entirety of their contentions, PTI still remains adamant on the fact that they have laid down a robust case. As usual failure to comprehend the pressing reality continues to flout the lack of intellectual capacity on part of PTI and their think tanks in the backdrop. It is a disgrace to the entire legal fraternity when certain segments within such as Fawad Chaudry malign a senior advocate of the Supreme Court solely because he rattles their cage by eyeing them from the other side of the rostrum. Instead of respecting the art of advocacy, immaculately displayed by Makhdoom Ali Khan, chaudry sahib tried to denounce the way of pleading adopted by Mr Khan and concluded that handheld video games be provided to them in order to pass their time in the courtroom. Obviously, this does not strike as a surprise at least to me since Fawad Chaudry’s wisdom and level of intellect wouldn’t allow him to decipher what Makhdoom Ali Khan eloquently illustrated before the court. I would love to see Mr Chaudry cite 150 judgments from 15 different countries around the world but then again it might be too difficult for him to grasp declarations made by Lord Denning. The fact that Fawad Chaudry remains a turncoat and a political as well as a legal nobody is manifestly portrayed in the deplorable statement made by him against an advocate, frequently labeled as the top litigator of Pakistan.
It is pertinent to mention the fact that after conclusion of arguments by Mr Khan, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa who heads the bench remarked that“his arguments were exceptional and it was a treat to hear them”. A lawyer shouldn’t always be viewed as a stalwart or a side-kick of their client(s) instead he should be treated as a professional offering his skills to a particular person at a particular time. As doctors do not discriminate between their patients regardless of their political affiliations, most lawyers with ethical values of their occupation embodied in them follow the same.
Reverting to the initial argument, it is not disputed that answers should be provided by the PM and his family for all the allegations leveled against them but let us not forget that the constitution vests a fundamental right through Article 10-A (right to fair trial) which remains readily available to the PM as it would be to any other citizen of the country. Let the prime minister and his family have their day in court while the rest of us wait patiently for the outcome. There are no absolutes and no absolutely right answers in constitutional matters. Expecting a decision merely on moral grounds is what a lot of people including all the petitioners aspire. The reality however remains far-fetched from this notion. The fact of the matter is that we stand at the behest of a court of “law” and not a court of “morality”.
Simultaneously, a more significant development inthe legal world witnessed from the very first day of 2017 is the change of command. Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar embarked on this expedition as a much awaited chief. The beginning of his reign, set to continue for almost two years and a month or so brings with it a ray of hope. Perspectives might differ but the incumbent chief’s bold strides indicate greater judicial activism throughout his tenure. In less than a month his lordship has taken a sound number of suo motto notices, thus paving way for better protection of fundamental rights of the citizenry and also prophesising an expansion of judicial powers and the enhancement of the original jurisdiction of the apex court. Critics yet again attempted to draw a connection between the ruling family and Chief Justice Nisar, however this notion was negated by the chief as he excluded himself from the bench hearing the Panama case. A wise and commendable step to begin his rule with as it would keep the critics at bay. Along with child rape, torture, forced marriages and desi ghee we hope to see a prospering judiciary which evolves not only in civil and constitutional matters but more importantly in criminal jurisprudence. Before calling it a day sometime in 2019 if Chief Justice Nisar is able to develop a criminal justice system strong enough to reprimand terrorists, there is no doubt that he shall go down in history as the greatest Chief Justice’s to have ever donned the robes.
Opinions might formulate against me for being one sided or I may even be accused of being a PML-N devotee. Rest assured I stand here, a student of law with a thirst for knowledge and a desire to defend the constitution of this country. Respect for settled jurisprudence and the prevalent law in general does not necessarily reflect the bias of a human being or even link him to one particular side.