It was time for the hourly headlines; the news flash began with the presidential reference of ZAB. The minutes of the court proceedings and the contentions of the petitioners were being shared, with emphasis on how this would rectify wrongs of the past and once and for all put an end to the intermeddling in the judicial processes. An instinctive chuckle framed my face as I recalled how appeals of the living were yet to be decided but the course of history would surely be corrected by taking pleas of the dead.
At the expense of overuse, Justice delayed is justice denied. Martin Luther King said that we are not makers of history, we are made by history. It is rich for a system to be scrutinizing the inter meddling of yesterday when today the same is being perpetrated against another former prime minister, who is being set up for a similar fate, perhaps not a death sentence but close to a life sentence.
What is being attempted to set right in the distant past, is easier set straight by implementing in the present when the same is still ongoing, so why is there this romanticism with the past. Is it because the people who are being nominated for this miscarriage of justice and misconduct cannot be resurrected to state their case, it is a valid reservation to imagine how will they give their statements of innocence? Would that not be a miscarriage of justice if the people being accused of some vendetta are not there to speak for themselves, so the paradox shall continue to exist. These questions are often argued in the courtrooms during ordinary cases, such as the cab rank rule, the right of an accused to defend himself, and the right to a fair trial, but perhaps in a case of this magnitude the same can be overlooked when Judicial Hierarchy deems right.
It’s perplexing that when there is sufficient opportunity to correct and restore the judicial image by deciding the case of the former Justice Islamabad High Court Mr. Shaukat Siddique, which will in fact to do much more service to the judicial integrity, especially when both the accusers and the accused are present to place their case, and pertains to allegations of similar intermeddling within the judiciary. Would it not be a much swift paced effort and for the history books and sail towards a prosperous future. Why do we want to correct what is there in history but not the present.
It reminds me of a quote by a Lawyer himself, Abraham Lincoln, that I walk slowly but I never walk backwards. Is it not time for us to walk forwards than backwards to embark upon progress than regress. Is it not possible for Judicial activism to be reflected in the decisions of today as opposed to the past.
-BARRISTER HAMMAD MASOOD
