Killing the Nation with Impunity

Some Rafat Pirzada claiming Sharifuddin haram zada’s brother mailed me after my comments on now defunct SAT and threatened me to expose my identity so they could fix me up.

The following note I wrote back to Sharifuddin Pirzada and his family.

Hello!

Scientists say that with the exception of very few species cross-breeding is not possible. For instance mating horse and donkey results in mule.

According to zoologists mating a swine and a bit ch will not produce anything, supposing that one can persuade a pig to f u ck a bitc h. Or even if one uses assisted insemination it wouldn’t help.

I am pretty sure that scientists and zoologists are missing something important. If one accepts their verdict then how can we explain the existence of Shariffudin Pirzada?
There is no other way to have such an abhorable character like him without coupling a wild boar and a truly nasty bit ch.
I suggest that genetic analysis of this h ara m zada should be done and the world would see that they have so far missed a truly strange specie.

If given chance I would not degrade my saliva by spitting in his fac e.

Instead of asking my address, give me yours and I may come by sometime to see pig+bit ch = pitch or should we call swine+dog= swog.

Shut up.

1.
Lawyers vow to continue anti-LFO struggle
By Rafaqat Ali
http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/15/top3.htm

ISLAMABAD, Oct 14: Lawyers on Tuesday vowed to continue their struggle against the ``uniformed president,`` and accused the judiciary of colluding with the military ruler.
They said the premise that the Supreme Court vested the military ruler with legislative power could not be accepted as the Constitution gave no such power to the judiciary itself. When the judiciary itself had no power to amend the Constitution, how could it allow such powers to any individual, they asked.
They said judges should also be tried on treason charges under Article 6 for cooperating with military rulers in subverting the Constitution.
Lawyers claimed that the judiciary was totally subjugated to the government and raising any matter of constitutional importance with its ``present composition`` was a futile exercise as it had validated all the actions taken by the military regime since October 12, 1999.

2.
Lawyers long march towards SC blocked
from Javed Rana
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Oct-2003/15/main/top5.asp

“We’ll get General Pervez Musharraf and the ‘guilty’ judges tried on high treason charges for their continued abrogation of the Constitution,” vowed Hamid Khan, the key leader of lawyers struggling against the constitutionality of Musharraf’s 31 amendments he pleads being part of the Constitution without two-thirds binding Parliamentary approval.
Hamid said judges, including Justice (Retd) Irshad, who was made Election Commissioner following their authoring of the validation of “extra-constitutional” apex court ruling on Musharraf’s legitimacy, would be tried as co-accused on high treason charges.
Hamid described honourable Chief Justice Riaz as “junior dictator” co-opting with his superior dictator General Pervez Musharraf to unleash an era of extra-constitutionality in Pakistan for the advancement of their personal political agenda. “He (Justice Riaz) is coward as he has run away to Peshawar after ordering to block our entry to the bar offices in the Supreme Court building,” said Hamid Khan.
Lawyers said General Musharraf is a retired General of grade-22 and enjoys no legal authority to declare himself as President of Pakistan through a last year’s extra-constitutional fraudulent referendum.

3.
Lawyers call for treason trial of Musharraf in parliament
By Mohammad Kamran
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-10-2003_pg1_8

ISLAMABAD: Lawyers and opposition parliamentarians on Tuesday called for General Pervez Musharraf to be tried for high treason in parliament under Article 6 for violating the 1973Constitution.
“Gen Pervez Musharraf is a usurper and the chief justice of Pakistan is his accomplice,” Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Hamid Khan declared at a lawyers’ convention at the culmination of three days of protest at the Legal Framework Order (LFO) and the fourth anniversary of the coup that brought Gen Musharraf to power.
He criticised the chief justice, saying he had “fled to Karachi after slamming the Supreme Court doors on lawyers. The day is not far when we will be inside and the usurper judges will be outside.”

Pirzada as conspirators to persons commiting high treason.

The mob`s lawyers represent the mob in the court knowingly and not out of ignorance. They represent the mob not because of their so called ``professional commitment``, but because they get paid 15 more times for arguing their case.
This is quid-pro-quo and these guys at chowk talk non-chalantly as if Pirzada is a reasonable man who is committed to his profession and makes living truthfully by just arguing for the cases of his clients who are deemed to be innocent until an adverse verdict is passed.
Guys!! don`t try to fool others with this incorrect depiction of such subverters of the constitution. These collaborators do this because they partake of the booty and the phenomenal powers of the martial law dictators !! You think the h****zada provides his services free to the dictators?

Exactly, dard u r rite, this budha man sells readymade remedy packets to the guns in advance. Moreover, I m very eager to know has this man ever won any constitutional case against the sitting government? No one has yet answer this interesting question.

Hnasir and Dard

Look, I’ve argued before that an independent judiciary is the key to Pakistan’s political, social, and economic well-being, but most importantly, to Pakistan`s continuation as a well-integrated viable state.

Once again, here’s my solution:

Let’s start from the top: The Supreme Court. No one should have the right to “appoint” a judge, but only “nominate” a judge. The nomination of the judge should come from the Prime Minister. The nomination should be presented to the Judiciary Committee, a committee of elected representative. The Judiciary Committee should scrutinize the nominated judge to the core, meaning all his/her track record and biases should be questioned. This Q&A and proceedings should be televised live for the public. The appointment or the rejection of the judge by the Committee should be final and no politician (or Army) can intervene. The Supreme Court should only be interpreting the Constituion and setting the Law of the Land, and all of its decision should be final and accepted gracefully by all parties involved.

The Supreme Court should be completely independent of the politicians and the Army and answerable only to the Constituiton. Unless that is achieved, Pakistan will remain stuck in the muck and if it`s not already a failed state, it eventually will. The question, however, remains: Who’s going to tie the bell around the cat’s neck.

The judiciary-executive nexus
Ijaz Hussain
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-9-2003_pg3_5

The question of extension in the retirement age of judges or for that matter corruption in the judiciary apparently has low priority for political parties. This means the best bet to deal with the curse of rent-a-judiciary lies in mobilising public opinion against this evil

Of all the organs of the State, an independent judiciary perhaps plays the most critical role in the promotion of democracy through legal control on authoritarianism. If it falters in this role, the nation suffers. The judiciary in Pakistan does not have an edifying history on this count. Most jurists agree that its weak-kneed response to the excesses of the executive early in the country’s history have gone a long way in impeding the progress of democracy in Pakistan.
When General Pervez Musharraf came to power through a coup in 1999, the Supreme Court of Pakistan again resorted to the doctrine of necessity in legitimising the illegal takeover. In doing so, it became a partner of the military regime and, as the Pakistan Bar Council white paper indicates, it has since enjoyed a quid pro quo, including the controversial three years’ extension in the judges’ retirement age.
Indeed, the Pakistan Bar Council decided to boycott the Supreme Court by refusing to challenge any constitutional question before it on the ground that it (PBC) could not expect a fair and impartial decision from the SC. The matter did not end there. The lawyers observed 8 March 2003, the day the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Riaz Ahmed, had to originally retire before the three-year extension as a black day. The PBC also held conventions throughout Pakistan against the judiciary. It then brought out a white paper in which it described the deeds of Pakistan’s judiciary. These measures by the legal community are unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. That matters should reach such a pass is unfortunate, but the situation raises a number of questions, which we propose to address here.
The judiciary’s saga began in 1954 when the Federal Court upheld the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by then-Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad. This was followed by the validation by the Court of Ayub Khan’s martial law. Later, it did try to reverse the decision by declaring Yahya Khan a usurper. However, the reversal came about after Yahya Khan’s departure from the political scene. Similarly, the SC tried to put up a brave face in the Haji Saifullah case by declaring Gen. Zia’s dissolution of the National Assembly invalid; but, again, this was done only after the dictator’s death (making his son publicly boast in a moment of truth that had his father been alive the judgment could not have been delivered). The litmus test of the judiciary’s independence would have been its decisions against the dictators when they were still in power. But the Supreme Court failed that test when it upheld Zia’s martial law in the Nusrat Bhutto case.
Its next test came when the military takeover by Gen. Musharraf was challenged. The Supreme Court not only justified it but also granted three years to the military regime to implement its programme, in addition to granting the right to make amendments to the Constitution, a right it did not itself possess. It is noteworthy that though the Court did not stipulate the removal of then-President Rafiq Tarrar in its judgment, the latter was removed and Gen. Musharraf was administered oath as President by the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The act was patently unconstitutional.
Most observers noticed that then-Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan was rewarded for this by Gen Musharraf when he made him the Chief Election Commissioner after his retirement. Since this came about partially through the efforts of the federal law secretary, Justice Khokhar, he was given an out-of-turn appointment as a Supreme Court judge even though he was a junior judge of the Lahore High Court (placed at no.13 in the seniority list). This was in clear violation of the principle laid down in the 1996 Judges’ Case which stipulated the seniority rule in the matter of appointment of judges. This and other appointments of junior judges were challenged but were turned down by a special bench presided over by Chief Justice Riaz Ahmed.
Here, mention must be made of the appointment of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry who succeeded Justice Falak Sher as chief justice of the LHC in 2002. Justice Chaudhry was given an out-of-turn appointment to which he recently reciprocated by declaring that Gen. Musharraf could at once hold the offices of the President of Pakistan and the COAS under the Constitution.
The judiciary’s independence was again put on trial in April 2002 when Gen. Musharraf sought to stay in office for five years through a referendum. This was challenged as being violative of the Constitution which stipulates a definite procedure for the election of the President and which was being circumvented through the device of referendum. The Court did not pronounce on the merit of the case on the ground that the question was academic, hypothetical and presumptive in nature. However, subsequently when the detailed judgment was announced, the Court justified the referendum on the ground that appeal to the political and popular sovereign, i.e., the people of Pakistan could not be termed as undemocratic and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. This was, at best, subterfuge. The judges simply took advantage of the short memory of the people to deliver a verdict which they never gave in the first place.
The matter has come to a head following the extension in the period of retirement age of judges. By granting extension, Gen. Musharraf violated his commitment to the nation that no amendment in the Constitution would be introduced unless it was circulated in advance for soliciting public comments. Interestingly, the extension period corresponds with the period granted by the judges to Gen. Musharraf as the Chief Executive.
Here the question arises whether the extension issue which triggered the present crisis has not been blown out of all proportions simply because it has been handled by the military regime. In this view there is nothing wrong with the extension as it brings Pakistani judges at par with their counterparts in other countries. In our judgment it is not the extension granted by the military but rather the manner and the method in which it has been granted which is the issue. This is so because it clearly smacks of a bribe for ‘services’ rendered by judges. If this was not the case why was the extension granted in such a hushed manner in the stealth of the night as if it was a commando action? Similarly, why the bar and parliament not involved in the process?
One might argue at this point that a more dignified and moderate approach should have been adopted to deal with the situation rather than resorting to extreme steps such as the Supreme Court’s boycott or issuance of a white paper. This contention is not justified because the cancer has metastasised and, as the dictum goes, desperate situations need desperate remedies.
Finally, a word about what needs to be done to make the present struggle against corruption in the judiciary succeed. It is obvious that the Pakistan Bar Council or for that matter the legal community acting alone cannot succeed. For that purpose they need to have the cooperation of other segments of the society, particularly the political parties. The latter have extended their support, though it isn’t unstinted as is evident from the MMA’s attempt to work out a compromise with the government to secure its own political ends against which the president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association has warned. Unfortunately, the question of extension in the retirement age of judges or for that matter corruption in the judiciary apparently has low priority for political parties. This means the best bet to deal with the curse of rent-a-judiciary lies in mobilising public opinion against this evil.

The writer is Professor Department of International Relations, Dean of Social Sciences Quaid-e-Azam University, and author of several books.

Here’s what our venerable Chowkies have suggested to fix an exceedingly complex problem in Pakistan:

Sameer’s Solution: Curse the crap out of them.

Urstruly’s Solution: Put their pictures on a Wall of Shame and piss on them.

Nighat’s Solution: Plead like a worried mother to her teen-age son, who has colored-and-spiked his hair, wears tattoos, and wears rings in his nose and ears among other body parts, to act normal.

You guys make me laugh...!!!

I have no choice but to agree with Ms Yasmeen. Because of the reasons recorded as follows.

Romair: In O J Simpson case, O J’s attorneys were (supposedly) equally aware/unaware of the truth behind O J’s denials as anyone else. And in any case, they were absolutely NOT part of the crime. NONE of them, according to our best of knowledge, advised O J in advance vis a vis modus operandi, strategy, future statements and/or arguments to be presented later in court proceedings. On the contrary this man starts from the other end.
Hence straightforward comparison of Khabeesuddin Hzada with ordinary advocates is totally flawed.

Rafay Alam: As far as I know most of the judges in Pakistan were really afraid of Riaz Basra (the dreaded sectarian killer) and used to get nervous on his entry (the very few times he did visit the courts in his long deadly career). Does that make him outstanding (in any positive sense) let alone respectable? As Professor Ghafoor said in the Senate yesterday (Friday, September 26, 2003) once upon a time, our mighty generals used to lose their cool on seeing the grand General Rani.

Godot: See that’s yet another point, this khabees insaan has always done his best to ensure that people like maha-kanjars from Shahi Mohalla, Irshad Hassan Khan, Sheikh Riaz, Iftikhar Chaudhary (the current CJ Lahore) be inducted in the judiciary and get promoted. The system, the judiciary you are talking about has alas been thoroughly ruined to some extent by this old satan.

Finally lopsided article by a housewife – I pray that we have a few more housewives of the sort than leaders like NS, BB, Shujaat Hussain, Faisal Saleh Hayat, Ijaz ul Haq, Homayoon Akhtar etc; lawyers like Khalid Ranjha (more than willing to trade his mother and daughter for a period of limelight); generals like Mansour ul Haque, Tauqeer Zia, Governor Maqbool.

Nighat,

Good question. If I received clients who told me that they had robbed, raped and murdered, and that that wanted to be let off, I would have the following options:

Explore all avenues of defence; and
Examine the evidence to see if any of it was collected in a manner which is against the law (illegal searches, siezures without warrant etc.).

These would be points I would argue. If the police had committed an error in their investigation, I would make that the basis of my defence. I would make it a case of ``The Criminal goes free because the Constable has blundered.``

However, at no point would I stand before the Court and plead that my clients did not do it. This, I am not allowed to do. I canno`t lie to the Court. At the most, I can give a technical defence. As long as I remain within these boundaries, I shouldn`t have any qualms if my clients are set loose. I am not to blame for the weaknesses in the police investigation. The police is. Remember that it is a golden principle that it is better to have one hundred guilty men go free than have one innocent man put behind bars. Oh, on a personal note: I would have serious problems with such a case. But I am not allowed to have by subjective evaluation on my clients effect my presentation of their case. To do so would be to invite a ``Cape Fear`` scenario (Nick Notle deliberately screws up Robert Deniro`s case, only to find him haunting his family years later).

Back to SSP: As long as he does not lie before the Bar, he cannot be faulted for his legal skills. If anything is to blame, it is the institution which accepts his arguments. But if one were to look at SSP`s politics, then he can be blamed for not showing any moral fibre in standing up to the ``right thing.``

Oh, and one last thing. A year ago, I nearly quit the firm I work at because we were engaged by the ISI to proceed in its case against the Begum of Bhopal`s estate in Karachi. However, my decision was based not on my aversion to the police action at her qul. It was based on the fact that I am personally acquianted with the family, and such personal affiliations would have effected my professional performance. We still took the case, but I am officially not working on it (a fine distinction, I will conceed).

Thanks for all the interacts. It`s been a good discussion.

Rafay Alam

Nighat Yasmeen:

I concur with your stand on this topic. It is not about his cometency as a lawyer which is no big deal anyway. All lawyers with degrees and experience are competent in their areas. A criminal defense attorney is suppose to give his best to acquit his client. Had SSP was not a constitution lawyer and instead a military establishment defense lawyer, his record would have been understood. Bit as am independent constitutional lawyer, he must have taken up the cases against dictatorial military establishment as well as for them depending who hires him first. His fees could have been paid easily by many political parties and groups for becoming the lead attorney in any of the well known anti-establishment cases. To me he sounds like a competent doctor who is an expert in surgical removing bad kidneys but in practice he removes kidney of poor patients for transplanting to the rich clients. Neither he gets rich from this practice, nor does unprofessional job but gets no respect because of poor ethics that go with each profession.

As you know there are many competent chemists involved in making drugs, copying patented medicines in India, China and elsewhere and some even helping terrorists to produce explosives and chemicial/ biological weapons - all doing professional job for the fees without morality and ethics.

Nighat Aapi (if I may address you so), a few months ago I stumbled upon your letter to the ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan, in Balochistan Post and truly enjoyed your thorough dressing down of these nasty characters.

http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.aspx?ID=3438

Now once again, you have done something that not many men in Pakistan dare to do. Please, accept my sincere most appreciations for unmasking this very dirty, extremely despicable creature. No doubt, he is one of the biggest curses Allah Almighty has penalized Pakistan with.

Shedding propriety aside, I would actually suggest -- in larger national interests -- making mandatory for all sanitary manufacturers of Pakistan to print his photo on every WC bowl produced in the country. So the nation can acknowledge his grand services in a fitting manner. He doesn’t deserve anything better. Another story, this would be an affront to human excretion.

PS. By the way, why not a group photo on my proposed WC, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Zia, Ayub, Yahya etc. all included.

Dear brothers: thanks a lot for reading this piece and blessing me with your valuable feedback, approving and critical ones alike.
There are certain points that I would however like to clarify further.

1) The moot point in Pirzada’s case is not his role as a lawyer, not even his professional excellence (or lack of it). My foremost objection is about his collaboration with the criminals, his active participation in subverting the law of the land. His complicity in the acts of treason, his conspiring with those who subvert and abrogate the Constitution. And kindly observe this process normally starts at the GHQ much before he appears in the court pleading for his own nefarious ideas, backed by the guns.
2) Brothers, what is a system -- something many people are very fond of blaming for everything unpleasant? Am I wrong to aver that it’s individuals at the top that create the system, shape the society? Please, correct me if I am wrong that in the civilised world it is the Constitution = statute book = the ultimate instrument of government that moulds the society and take the nation either towards prosperity or towards abolition. Cursing system is at best equivalent to identify alibis for the perpetrators, nothing more than that. Sorry, but don’t you think that instead of wrangling about non-representational concepts like system, its time to pinpoint and condemn those vile individuals who have contributed (massively) to corrupt and destroy the system?
3) Dear Rafay, judges losing their cool don’t necessarily say anything. Once again, as I asked earlier, help me to recall any case he has so far undertaken during “adverse” circumstances, i.e., against official line and/or not on the behalf of the sitting government and had prevailed?
4) Rafay, please tell me what should have you (or for that matter any lawyer) done had he were fully aware of the sordid fact that the two boys accused of robbery had not only committed robbery but on their way they had also killed two young girls after having gang-raped them? I mean when there was absolutely no doubt about their guilt in the said chain of events? 101 % of Pirzada’s political cases can be metaphorically explained like this.
5) Finally, without getting into academic discussion of professional duties, as someone said, we have got to shed our perverse reluctance to be outraged regarding collective affairs. We must get rid of our indifference, our passivity to move forward. Social emancipation, political progress is simply not possible in the absence of active, vigilant and questioning citizenry. Unfortunately, this is where we often fault as a nation.
6) Please, read my letter that I posted to the Chief Justice of Pakistan begging him to step down before his retirement date as per stipulated by the Constitution – to no avail. Obviously, I never got any reply from him. The text of the letter is available at
http://www.balochistanpost.com/item.aspx?ID=3438

Take care,
Allah Hafiz
Nighat Yasmeen

“If truth be told, not Pirzada alone, each and every person who in any capacity facilitates the despots (elected and imposed ones alike) to build legal castles around them through the drama of phony amendments under deceptive nomenclature ought to be considered as criminals and thereafter treated accordingly.”

This maybe a good idea. But, I hope you understand, that this would lead to nearly all the leaders, elected and otherwise, to be considered criminals. As well as their legal counsels. Consider, the main leaderships of Pakistan:

Zia-ul-Haq, you have already talked about.
Benazir: She went after the courts with her jiyala judges, in an attempt to subjugate the judiciary.
Nawaz Sharif: Perhaps the worst criminal of them all, as far as the judiciary is concerned. He physically had the Supreme Court assaulted, when it was to hear a case against him. And then eventually split up the Supreme Court, and removed the Chief Justice.
Musharraf: Carried out a coup and then sidelined the judiciary.

So, we have a choice to get rid of everyone (which is the correct solution), and find new leadership. However, we, the people, for some reason are unwilling to get rid of everyone, even when we have the chance. Though we keep complaining. BB would still win by a landslide against anyone in a personal election, despite what she did to the judiciary, and despite being an international thief of gigantic proporitions.

The other choice is to accept the best amongst the lot available.

I cannot however, agree with your judgements on Sharifuddin Pirzada. He is a lawyer, and does what his client hires him to do. That is the job of any lawyer, i.e. to pursue their case, as well as they can. That is the job of the lawyer defending O.J. Simpson and the lawyer defending OBL. And the job of the lawyer hired to, “tear apart” the Constitution. And, by their oaths, and by legal compulsions, they are supposed to do defend their clients to their best possible legal capabilities.

The group that needs to be blamed are the judges, themselves. They have so much authority, yet they always give in. Every single time. They are the ones who make the decisions, not the lawyers. If the Supreme Court had removed NS, when he stormed the Supreme Court, they would have been considered heroes. However, the Army removing NS was a considered a completely different matter. Even though the end result was the same. It is thus much easier for judges to take a stand against anyone, since the law is completely on their side.

Yet, the judges never take a stand. In fact, they are extremely easy to split up. They even ended up firing their own boss, the Chief Justice. Pakistani judges need to develop a spine. At the very least, they can resign, when they don’t agree with something. And they should never allow politicians to cause a break in their ranks. This is exactly why the military, in Pakistan, rightly or wrongly, is able to dominate every other institution. Try as they might, the politicians have never been able to cause splits in the internal military command structure. The corps commanders always follow their leader (even if they personally hate him). NS tried his best to divide them up by appointing his own man as COAS. No one followed the guy.

The judges need to be loyal to their own internal command structure also, rather than being loyal to the politicians. If the judges had stood up to NS the same way, and gotten rid of him, instead of getting rid of Justice Sajjad Shah (their own Chief Justice), there would have been no coup. Pakistani judiciary would have finally established itself, by removing the executive, on its own, for the first time in its history. And democracy would have finally grabbed hold in the country.

One cannot blame this on Shariffuddin Pirzada. He is a lawyer making money, by presenting his case to the judges. This is what all lawyers do. Including Johnny Cochran, Allen Dershowitz, etc.

Alam saheb, we are not talking about those lawyers who argue upon a particular point while basing their arguments upon the principles, acts and rules of the pakistani legislations. We are talking about rascals like h****zada who has the ability to change the very principles, acts and rules which does not suit his argument. We are talking about collborators to the army dictators who collude with the dictators to commit high treason by subverting the very constitution and its guiding principles of distributive justive, democracy and equity. We are talking about those who can appoint, transfer and perhaps even impeach a judge who does not accept his arguments. We are talking about power brokers who provide services to the dictators so that they can stay in power for as long as possible.

I can understand your empathy becasue deep inside you would like to be in his shoes.

re rafay_alam #25:

I am not sure if one can separate politcs from someone`s practice like SSP. As for judges breaking into a sweat same thing is said about SM Zafar that other gunslinger for hire although he has managed to retain some semblance of proprietary judgement. The more I dig the more I find that the generation that has had the most say in running Pakistani affairs since partition is a bunch of `khota sikkas`. They`ve all been by and large deficient in having high moral standards. The younger generation is probably not as hypocritical but is left with very aces to set the ship right.

later
-sac

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 whose is caught with his hand in a cookie jar.

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.``.