- Loopholes within the system
Justice delayed is justice denied. The legal maxim has proven its veracity uncountable times before. But this time it has been verily proven that Lady Justice is, indeed, blind. People are not wrong in linking New Year’s Eve car crash that claimed the life of a police constable in Lahore with the one that consumed another sergeant’s being in Quetta back in June. Many facets of both the cases hold close similarity to each other, the might-is-right phenomenon being one of them. The nuisance, however, does not arise from the fact that might is right; it becomes problematic when might is consistently, predominantly and customarily right. The occurrence of such incidents one after the other is a vindication of this naked truth.
The allegorical personification of judiciary is depicted wearing a blindfold since the 16th century, the blindfold representing impartiality that was to apply justice without keeping in view power, status, or wealth. However, the piece of cloth covering the eyes of Justitia has instead been woven with threads of the same three elements from which her sight and, therefore, her judgements were to be protected. And another replica of this cloth is the one that hoodwinks the influential lot of this country, as has been witnessed in both the aforementioned cases. It is the intoxication of power that makes the believe in their right to do whatever they wish to (murder of Shahzeb Khan by son of a feudal being a more relevant example); it is their wealth that stupefies their senses and convinces them of the worthlessness of others’ lives; it is the insobriety caused by their social status that eventually saves their necks in the name of bail.
CCTV footage circulates on social media showing a speeding vehicle running over and killing a traffic sergeant, the driver is identified as Abdul Majeed Khan Achakzai, member of Balochistan Assembly, the legislator is arrested from his residence, a judicial magistrate remands him to police custody, Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar takes suo motu notice of the accident and orders the police to submit the report to the top court, but after giving much hopes and expectations to well-wishers of the system an anti-terrorism court approves his bail against surety bond of half a million rupees.
The allegorical personification of judiciary is depicted wearing a blindfold since the 16th century, the blindfold representing impartiality that was to apply justice without keeping in view power, status, or wealth
And how easy it was for MPA Achakzai to confess to his involvement in the accident and his willingness to compensate the family members of the killed policeman. In this particular instance ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ have the same answer. It is all because of the stacks of money he possesses using which he can literally buy anything, including his life and others’ death. What needs to be understood when dealing with financial compensation in terms of blood money is that Diyah is only an alternative punishment to Qisas (eye-for-an-eye kind of retaliation) and only applies when victim’s family want to compromise with the guilty; it is not an option that could be utilised by those who can afford. The most unfortunate aspect of the whole scenario was tossing of flower petals on him after his release and welcoming him with slogans being chanted by workers of Pakhtoonkhwa Mili Awami Party which indicates that the blindfold has actually blinded the whole nation at once.
This case could have set a precedent for all those who taxi their vehicles on roads like airplanes on runways. But such dreams of seeing justice being imparted to all left our minds with release of Achakzai on 28 December 2017. Its fallout? Another citizen rammed his speeding car into two cops who were deployed at a picket on New Year’s eve in Lahore. One constable expired on the way to the hospital while the other was given treatment. Signalling a speeding car to stop at a check post became their crime and the car, in an attempt to overtake the one in front of it, took a sharp turn and hit the barricade. The driver, initially being reported to hail from an influential family, managed to flee after the incident, leaving his car behind. The FIR of this incident has nominated the suspect for ‘causing death without intention to cause harm’ and ‘causing harm by rash or negligent driving’. But my question here at this very point that why did the driver go beyond speed limit on a main road? Why did he drive rashly when he was definitely not incognisant of thousands of road accidents that occur every day due to the same reason? What was the urgent need to violate the prescribed limit? Why did he risk his and others’ lives? Can doing so deliberately be accounted as ‘causing death without intention’ or ‘negligent driving’?
The Fatal Accidents Act of 1855 which is followed in Pakistan is one “to provide compensation to families for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong”. However, “no action or suit is now maintainable in any court against a person who, by his wrongful act, neglect or default may have caused the death of another person, and it is oftentimes right and expedient that the wrongdoer in such case should be answerable in damages for the injury so caused by him”. Does this comply with the ideal of Qisas and should it not be revisited given that Diyah is now being used as a prerogative of and a way out for the influential?
It is the loopholes within our system that is allowing its perpetual violation and injustice to the victims. The decision of both these cases is pending and this waiting period has let our hopes kindled and alive. The verdicts, nonetheless, should serve justice to both the slain and the culprits. Because, in words of Frederick Douglass, “Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organised conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”.