Defamation to distract from justice
In the sad ongoing saga of delayed justice for Shahzeb Khan, we have already seen the powerful utilise money, feudal influence, coercion, corrupt institutions, and apathetic government bodies to free a murderer. But now we can now add defamation to that list as well.
According to “Mr Qaum” on Bol Network, activist and lawyer Jibran Nasir is “funded by an Indian NGO,” “runs campaigns against the army and judiciary,” and is “against Islamic laws”. This segment of the show “Aisay Nahi Chalay Ga” consists of nothing but a tirade against Nasir by a masked figure who asks a series of rhetorical questions such as: “What is his hidden agenda; what forces are backing him; and whose agent is he?”
The segment appears shortly after Nasir and nine other Pakistani citizens filed an appeal at the Supreme Court against a Sindh High Court (SHC) judgement which set aside Shahrukh Jatoi’s death sentence, and ordered a re-trial of the case minus the charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which were the basis of Jatoi’s conviction and sentence.
The inclusion of the ATA charges is important because without them Jatoi walks free.
When it comes to Pakistani law, in a simple case of murder, the aggrieved parties of the crime are the heirs of the deceased and they hold the right to Qisas or Diyat. Qisas is the family’s right to ‘an eye for an eye, a life for a life,’ while Diyat is the family’s right to accept blood money and let the killer go free. Shahzeb’s father has released a statement forgiving Shahzeb’s murders, waiving both rights to Qisas and Diyat. What the family went through before the release of that statement is anyone’s guess; however, Shahzeb’s aunt has previously stated that his father was beaten on various occasions and sent to the hospital bleeding.
The sad reality of this case is that it features two sons of two very powerful feudal families: Shahrukh, the main accused, is from the Jatoi family and Nawab Siraj Ali, who aided Shahrukh, is from the Talpur family. Jatoi was even able to use his money and influence to escape to Dubai soon after the murder and had to be brought back for trial. It is because of people like this that the principles of Diyat and forgiveness can be exploited in a way that allows the rich and powerful to buy their way out of justice. This goes against the very spirit of Islamic law, in which Diyat is meant to ease the situation of the victims, not become a get out of jail free card for the rich.
However, if Shahzeb’s murder is treated as an act of terrorism, the state becomes a party to the case, and the heirs of the deceased cannot forgive the murderers—with or without Diyat. This is why before the recent SHC judgement, Jatoi was on death row, despite the statement of forgiveness from Shahzeb’s father.
It is ironic to note that as Jibran Nasir approached the courts to ensure that the rich cannot escape justice, a programme airs terming Nasir being “against the judiciary”. Nasir, in fact, trusts our judiciary and legal system to ensure that justice does not depend on the wealth, family, and influence of the murderers. He has appeared on multiple television talk shows to explain how his stance is based on judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the SHC’s own previous judgements.
Mr Qaum’s questions about Nasir seem to warrant a few others. For example, why is Mr Quam hiding behind a mask to say what he does? Why would Mr Quam attack Nasir during the time Nasir’s only campaign is one to demand justice for a murdered student? Anonymity is not a crime, but defamation is—and Mr Qaum fails to provide any semblance of evidence for the accusations hurled at Nasir.
According to the ‘Defamation Ordinance of 2002,’ defamation includes any circulation of wrongful information which “injures the reputation of a person, tends to lower him in the estimation of others or tends to reduce him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike, contempt or hatred”. Insinuations that Nasir has any sort of foreign funding or “anti-army” agenda are not only harming Jibran Nasir as an independent political candidate, but other accusations thrown around by the channel—such as those related to the blasphemy laws—actually pose a threat to his life.
It is because of people like Jatoi that the principles of Diyat and forgiveness can be exploited in a way that allows the rich and powerful to buy their way out of justice
It is a dirty and low blow tactic for sure, but it is an old, overused rhetoric used by many in Pakistan, in an attempt to ostracise political opponents, and any sort of political dissidents that challenge the oppressive power structures in the country.
Nasir has not, as of now, demonstrated any intention to sue Bol Network or the programme itself for defamation. Instead, he has stated “…we won’t be intimidated or distracted. Our focus is and will remain on the issue. We will fight our battles in Court against injustice in the Shahzeb Khan [versus] Shahrukh Jatoi case.”