Killing the Nation with Impunity

Rafay Alam

Unlike this article, which is so lopsided that no thinking and intelligent person could take seriously (mercifully, the author is only a housewife and not some “journalist”), you are persuasive because your argument is based on cold logical reasoning.

Along the same line of argument as yours, we had this very high-profile case of a murder in the US, televised publicly, in which the accused, O J Simpson, a black man whom everyone thought was guilty as sin for brutally murdering his white wife, was acquitted because of the brilliant manipulation of the race card his lawyer, Johnny Cochran, played, shifting the focus from the evidence-of-murder to race. Should we point our moral fingers to Cochran for saving his so-obviously-guilty client, or should one admire his skills as a lawyer for playing the system?

More often than not, those who swing their moral dundas, they swing it only one way – in the direction of their prejudice and hatred. They paint only one picture and are blinded to the shortcomings of those who they approve. They are as credible as a child who is caught with his hand in a cookie jar.

Just last week, I successfully argued the bail application of two boys accused of dacoity (thats robbery with five or more people). I had never met them (they were in jail). The only reason I got the case was because one of the boys was the cousin of a friend`s cook (I know, I know).

Point is: I don`t know whether they did it or not. I just argued the facts that were given to be by my friend (that they were innocent, etc.). If I was wrong, I was not knowingly wrong. Here is the point: I am allowed to defend my clients in whatever manner the law (and by law, I mean the Courts) permit. However, I am not allowed to lie or to misrepresent facts on their behalf. In fact, I am not allowed an opinion on their innocence of guilt. That is is job of the Court.

The same, I fear, is true for SSP. In my first post, I specifically mentioned that as long as he does not lie at the Bar or in his opinions, he cannot be faulted (if he does lie or misrepresent, then nothing can be said in his defence). If there is fault anywhere, it is with the institution which allows his opinions or arguments to become the law.

Can you imagine what would happen to any system of justice if lawyers were allowed their subjective opinions when taking cases? Just the same as if doctors were allowed. The entire system rests on the rule that a lawyer must take a case (if the client can afford his fee), but must not lie before the Court.

Now, if there is criticism of SSP`s manipulation of the system (which, I conceed because I have personal knowledge of his magic), that is a different issue. But then you are criticising SSP for his politics, not his practice. A distinction needs to be made. He has manipulated the system better than most. It is privilege, I suppose, which can be afforded to the man who was the first ever legal counsel engaged by the newly formed Government of Pakistan, and who has been instrumental in appointing judges to the High and Supreme Courts since the 1950s. It`s common knowledge that when SSP enters appearance in a case, a judge loses his cool. That`s because SSP was Attorney General of Pakistan at a time when most of our judiciary hadn`t even finished law school.

Once again: SSP`s politics can be questioned. But his behavious as a lawyer cannot. I made these clarifications specific in my earlier posts.

Rafay Alam

# 23 Godot

`Your logic is driven by hatred, not reason...and the joke is that you call yourself a Buddhist...!!!

Another one of Godotisms. As I have said, Godot, Romair, and Bina Shah represent the worst in Islam, the fake modernists who will keep Muslims tied to their camels for another five hundred years.

Read Sameer`s post again and judge for yourself if it is driven by logic or hatred.

``When an interpretation of a law by the likes of SSP always turns out to be just the opposite of the common understanding and/ or interpretation of that law and prevails in the court of justice, the lawyer becomes a party to extract that interpretation in the eyes of people with common understanding of the law.

When a doctor always diagnose wrong despite honestly practicing his profession is gulity and subject to revoking the practicing licence by the state. That is why they need malpractice insurance against suing by the patients.

A doctor doing it for the fee or SSP doing it for the fee do not absolve them of predominently wrong diagnosing or succeeding in extracting opposite to common interpretation respectively.

If SSP is justified in doing what he has done as a professional, almost all crooks can justify their actions including Musharraf - justifying the overthrow in the name of defending the country. Technically speaking, a mullah with his followers can scale the walls of presidency and PTV in Islamabad, claiming to be replacing a government not Islamic for the Islamic Republic and getting it okayed with the help of SSP. Remember, according to the law, the president has to be a Muslim. All they need to prove is that Musharraf was not a Muslim based on some fatwas or sharia waria stuff. The common interpretation of president to be a Muslim, however, is that prsident was born to Muslim parents and has never renounced his religion. The common understanding of Article 6 (a) is that overthrowing civilian government is high treason.``

Sameer, 22

Your logic is driven by hatred, not reason...and the joke is that you call yourself a Buddhist...!!!

When an interpretation of a law by the likes of SSP always turns out to be just the opposite of the common understanding and/ or interpretation of that law and prevails in the court of justice, the lawyer becomes a party to extract that interpretation in the eyes of people with common understanding of the law.

When a doctor always diagnose wrong despite honestly practicing his profession is gulity and subject to revoking the practicing licence by the state. That is why they need malpractice insurance against suing by the patients.

A doctor doing it for the fee or SSP doing it for the fee do not absolve them of predominently wrong diagnosing or succeeding in extracting opposite to common interpretation respectively.

If SSP is justified in doing what he has done as a professional, almost all crooks can justify their actions including Musharraf - justifying the overthrow in the name of defending the country. Technically speaking, a mullah with his followers can scale the walls of presidency and PTV in Islamabad, claiming to be replacing a government not Islamic for the Islamic Republic and getting it okayed with the help of SSP. Remember, according to the law, the president has to be a Muslim. All they need to prove is that Musharraf was not a Muslim based on some fatwas or sharia waria stuff. The common interpretation of president to be a Muslim, however, is that prsident was born to Muslim parents and has never renounced his religion. The common understanding of Article 6 (a) is that overthrowing civilian government is high treason.

Re rafay #20:

``Would you dissaprove of a doctor who wouldn`t treat a man who he knew was guilty of rape?``

I am not trained in the finer points of the law but I`ll attempt to dissect this argument anyway. A lawyer`s job may just be delivering for the client the ``results they want`` but what do you say if the lawyer knowingly delivers the wrong ``results`` for the love of money or wine or boys or whatever? Has the profession of law reached a stage where the `satisfaction` of the client is the sole motive for a lawyer taking up a case? If this indeed is the case then we don`t need to be right. Morally or judiciously. We just need to spend the big bucks to hire the most expensive mercenary.

They say greater the privilege, greater the responsibility. A man of SSS`s stature and track record obviously sees no need to modify his behaviour in order to serve his clients. What recourse is there to shame a man like him short of the ideas discussed by other interactors?

later
-sac

P.S:Thoroughly enjoyed your write-up in tft. Keep up the good work. That rag desperately needs people like you.

Look, what I`m trying to say may not be popular (if it is the season for anything, sac, it is of the cheap shot), but you have to agree that when I said that SSP does his job well, I meant it as a lawyer. You may not approve of what he does - which, I may add, happens to be my personal opinion - but you have to agree that he gets his clients the results they want. If the system can be bent, then he can bend it. And let me assure you that, khuda na karey, you get yourself in a legal problem in Pakistan, you would want someone to do the same.

Again, to illustrate the point: Would you dissaprove of a doctor who wouldn`t treat a man who he knew was guilty of rape?

If anyone is to blame for the constitutional muck ups our jurisprudence has delivered over the years, it is not SSP. It is the system, and the people in it. Is it SSP`s fault he advised Musharraf that he could hold his referendum? Or is the Supreme Court of Pakistan, an institution which didn`t have the back-bone to say NO when they were asked the same question, and instead gave that farce its legitmacy?

Is is Justice Muhammad Munir`s fault he he started the concept of the doctrine of necessity in Maulvi Tamizuddin`s case? Or Justice Anwar-ul-Haq`s when he decided to accept Zia-ul-Haq`s martial law in the Nusrat Bhutto case? Or is is SSP`s.

(I have just realized that what I written above constitutes a contempt of Court.)

I think if you want to start palying the name game, getting your bearings is important. You don`t want to point your well-deserved criticism the wrong way.

Rafay Alam

Regarding #8 by godot on September 24, 2003 8:02am PT

``Blame it on Godot``

Scott & t

I`ve even thought of naming such ``monuments`` with names such as sharamgah-e-Pirzada, sharamgah-e-Musharaf and so on and so forth. Gehwara-e-sharam was also a good name, but it gives an impression of a building rather than a wall. We can build one such building in Islamabad (an equivalent of House of Shame); but I think it will only be an addition to the existing Presidency, PM House, Parliament, Supreme Court, GHQ etc. People would have really hard time figuring out which is more shameful.... gehwara-e-sharam.

hang them by invoking
Article 6: (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.
We must aprobate, reward and honor people like Hamid Khan because they represent a credible deterrence to the likes of h****zada and their masters.

urstruely what a brilliant idea - vicarious revenge by peshab. Don`t sue the politicians just sue sue them.

Urstruly

...not enough walls for all the names:)

Rafay_alam

I would have to agree with sac on this one. One of the point that Nighat is trying to make is that Mr. Pirzada is not a constitutional lawyer by any stretch of imagination; heck, he doesn`t even qualify as a mob`s lawayer (mob being Pak Army). Bhai mere there is also something called ``ethics`` that is taught as a part of education in the subject of law. Probably, you were one of those students who thought that getting 33 out 100 in the subject of ``ethics`` would somehow make you ethical as well.

The case for Musharaf`s Referendum that Pirzada presented before nation was that ``Article 96-A (under Seventh Amendment) has provisions for a referndum`` . I think a even a layman who can read simple english sentences can see below that Artcle 96-A of constitution does not have any provisions for the kind of referndum that Mushraf pulled. Pirzada did not show any ``brilliance`` or ``jadugari`` here. It was the gang rape of the nation by this a/hole, by the earthworms who call theselves supreme court judges, and by the army....... pure and simple. Here is article 96-A of our constitution:


Article 96-A

Referendum as to confidence in Prime Minister.

(1) If at any time the Prime Minister considers it necessary to obtain a vote of confidence of the people of Pakistan through a referendum, he may advise the President to cause matter to be referred to a referendum in accordance with law made by Parliament.

(2) The law referred to in clause ( 1) shall provide for the Constitution of Referendum Commission and the manner and mode of holding a referendum.

(3) On receipt of the advice of the Prime Minister under clause (1), the President shall call upon the Referendum Commission to conduct a referendum amongst the persons whose names appear on the electoral rolls for the immediately preceding general elections to the National Assembly as revised up-to-date.

(4) Any dispute arising in connection with the counting of votes at referendum shall be finally determined by the Referendum Commission or a member thereof authorized by it and, save as aforesaid, no dispute arising in connection with a referendum or the result thereof shall be raised or permitted to be raised before any court or other authority whatsoever.

(5) If, on the final count of the votes cast at the referendum, the Prime Minister fails to secure majority of the total votes cast in the matter of the confidence of the people of Pakistan, he shall be deemed to have tendered his resignation with in the meaning of Article 94.``.