Whither justice?

In a major development that has also managed to somewhat divide legal minds, Shahrukh Jatoi – the prime accused in the high-profile Shahzeb Khan murder case – was acquitted by a three-member Supreme Court bench on Tuesday. His accomplices have also been acquitted. For the past 10 years, this case has seen many a twist and turn. In December 2012, 20-year-old Shahzeb was gunned down in Karachi’s DHA, and Jatoi was found to be the perpetrator. Jatoi’s influential and rich family used every tool to get relief for their son: Shahrukh Jatoi fleeing abroad, then getting preferential treatment, then being shifted to a private hospital. Legally, the case could have been handled better by the prosecution but it has mostly been the media pressure and judicial activism that led to Jatoi’s incarceration rather than the law itself. An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) handed Shahrukh and an accomplice the death penalty. Eventually, the victim’s family pardoned the accused – but reportedly this was done under duress. The Sindh High Court ordered a retrial in 2017 and set aside the death penalty. It also removed the terrorism charges. A sessions court released all the accused on bail in December 2017. Petitions were then filed by activists. In 2018, these petitions were turned into a suo motu by the SC and restored terrorism charges. However, in 2019, the apex court set aside the death penalty for the two accused and turned it into life imprisonment. The accused then filed appeals in the SC against life imprisonments and they were subsequently acquitted yesterday. Most legal opinion has tended towards the thinking that in a private feud, terrorism laws cannot be applied – the SC has itself said this in various judgements. In fact, for many legal observers the insertion of terrorism made the prosecution’s case weak. However, irrespective of these legal technicalities, what is being questioned now is how and why the courts did not question or set aside the pardon by the victim’s family.

It would be fair to say that most Pakistanis have little faith in the justice system. This is mainly due to the perception that the rich and powerful use their influence to literally get away with murder. The Nazim Jokhio murder case is a glaring example of how a rich and influential political family has used all means to evade justice. This is what happens when the laws and our system favour the rich. Since the culprits are powerful, the victims' families sometimes don't speak up – perhaps in fear of reprisals. It is the responsibility of the state to build a stronger case in circumstances where the victim is not as powerful as the accused.

There is a serious need to review laws that allow out-of-court deals with murderers in exchange for full pardons. In practice, these laws are used most often by the rich to buy their way out of murder convictions. When you add to that the impunity with which the rich and powerful can threaten those less fortunate than them, it becomes understandable why fearful families would rather forgive the killers, take the money and run rather than fight an unequal battle. Not only have we ended up creating a parallel justice system based on class, a crime like murder has also ended up being treated as one against the individual and his family and not a crime against society. At the end of the say, the justice system must ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done – and in the case of murder, ensure that it is too serious a crime to be turned into a transaction between families. Which is why it comes as some relief that the attomey general’s office has announced that it will file a review petition against the Jatoi acquittal jedgement.