Sunday, January 1, 2012

... of Memogate and Lawyers

Everyday a new twist in the story and proceedings. One party says that it is conspiracy against national security, other terms it as 'just a piece of paper'. On one hand supreme court's 30 Dec verdict was a historical landmark for the Free Judiciary, on the other hand it was a black day for judiciary. Polarization in political parties is to justify each and every action even those which are grossly wrong or purely personal (Aysha Ahad or Sapna's case). At the same time to oppose each and every step of other party, no matter how good it was.  Answer to an allegation is a counter-allegation. Why this is happening? why dont we find any impartial and justified view. Who would tell us what is actually right or wrong?
Roots of these problems are linked with 'lawyers' in our politics. The loudest spokespersons of parties are mostly lawyers, the same very persons are making the laws and also want the implementation as per their own accord and justification.
Who is a lawyer? and what he is trained for? How we assess or measure the success in his profession?
Lawyer is not the judge; he is not the one to give you justice, rather he is trained to justify the most brutal acts of mass murderers and criminals. A good and successful lawyer is the one who had managed to get his defendants evicted from the 'iron fist' and 'long hands' of 'blind justice'. There is no money and glory in representing oppressed victims.
A lawyer representing a murderer or criminal would progressively proceed as following:-
1. At first he would try to find some loopholes in FIR and 'Chalan', like the 'chalan' was not presented within stipulated time, it is not signed by two officers of xx grade, or it in not counter signed on the same very date, etc. Thus making chalan and whole case invalid for hearing.
2- At second level, he would try to manipulate the presentation of evidence and witnesses in a way that these things are not timely submitted, presented and coordinated; or the name in FIR is Muhammad Tariq and the name on ID card is Mohammad Tarique,  thereby closing the case due to 'lack of evidence' .
3. At third stage he would try to declare it a mistrial, by proving that so and so 'phoopar' پھوپھڑ of police and prosecutor or judge is distant cousin of 'massar' ماسڑ of 'pitrair's پتر یر  'sandoo'  سا ڈھو of other party.
4- Lastly he would try to prove that defendant was mentally upset or suffering from the trauma of childhood abuse or a medical certificate that defendant is not in his senses so can not be trialed.
5. In rare eventuality, if he loses the case, the judges and whole system is declared wrong. ایسے دستور کو میں نہیں مانتا
Is he doing something wrong? HELL NO! he is doing what he is trained and paid to do. By the way where is the justice in all of above steps? 
It is just a marathon between both the parties to hire better and more expensive lawyer; their sustenance and endurance to prolong the trial to exhaust other is the 'judicial victory', but again where is the justice?
Once Caliph Umar (RA) is questioned about his dress made of two sheets  instead of one; he steps down and asks for the witness to testify that second sheet is donated by his son. He does not dispose the case that the common person can not question mighty Caliph or 'supreme judicial council' can not hear the petition.
Now the last words,
Let the lawyers do their job by giving arguments in support of whatever agenda they have, but don't let your judgement carried away or hijacked by loud voices and aesthetically appealing sentences. Remember! they are the Lawyers and you are the Judge; onus of justice is onto you.

1 comment:

  1. One thing is fore-sure that we deserve these sort of lawyers rather liars. If any ones commits a mistake or blunder like Butt, Amir and Asif; lawyers led them to believe they r innocent and case can be won despite a simple question that how on earth Mazhar knew a day prior to that day which balls and who will be the bowler to bowl a noball.