An inaccessible ideal

It is rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. Our history is replete with incidents where delayed justice for victims of human rights violations has almost always resulted in a verdict that has favoured the criminals.

Is it because the jury gets tired of calling court hearings over prolonged periods of time, or is it out of sheer pressure from influential quarters who buy their way into the criminal justice system?

While the former has also been true, the latter has remained a constant, which calls into question the impartiality of the justice system.

The justice system is premised on the notion that the rich and poor are treated equally. But unfortunately, access to justice is based on a person’s social standing.

There’s an exhaustive list of hardcore criminals who were set free in the recent past. All very influential and well-connected in society. There’s also an exhaustive list of how non-influential people, including children and people with disabilities, have faced the wrath of the justice system for minor offences.

The acquittal of Shahrukh Jatoi, the prime accused in the Shahzeb Khan murder case, along with his accomplices, by a three-member Supreme Court bench, has yet again exposed the duplicity of our law.

Shahrukh Jatoi, the son of an influential businessman, murdered Shahzeb Khan in 2012. Khan’s only fault was his refusal to allow the harassment of his sister.

Jatoi was initially tried in an Antiterrorism Court (ATC) and handed the death sentence along with his accomplice, which was set aside after a retrial by the Sindh High Court in 2017 along with the removal of terrorism charges. The same year, the victim’s family made statements and signed documents in duress and all the accused were released on bail.

Subsequently, pressure from rights activists and the media led to the restoration of terrorism charges and life imprisonment for the perpetrators.

On October 18, 2022, the Supreme Court acquitted Shahrukh Jatoi and his accomplices, in what was a complete travesty of justice.

An infuriated public has reacted to the judgment on social media expressing apprehension about the possible release of Zahir Jaffer and Shahnawaz Amir who have both confessed to murdering their intimate partners and are under trial.

All these criminals share a common denominator: influential, well-connected, with strong political affiliations.

Let’s now glance at how not sharing the above denominator strips you from access to justice, even if you commit a minor offence, are underage and mentally unstable.

In 2019, Salahuddin Ayubi, a robbery suspect was arrested after his video of breaking open an ATM machine, making faces and sticking his tongue out at the CCTV camera had gone viral. Two days later, he was declared dead. Forensic reports confirmed torture before death. His father, who was aware of his son’s mental health issues, had tattooed Salahuddin’s name and home address on his arm for identification purposes. Two months later, news surfaced of the accused police officers being pardoned by the victim’s father.

Just days ago, a video surfaced of Imaan Mazari, a rights activist, busting a police officer for custodial torture of a minor in an SHO’s private office. A petition was filed by her along with Farhatullah Baber in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the horrendous brutality. It was learned that the minor boy had been implicated in a purportedly unrelated first information report (FIR) of phone snatching.

These incidents are only a tip of the iceberg. Torture, wrongful confinement, political pressure and elite bias have remained part and parcel of our judicial system. Our justice system is undoubtedly in need of an overhaul.

It was unclear why terrorism charges, that can easily be removed, were framed against Jatoi who had evidently committed ‘fasad fil arz’ (mischief on earth) as categorized in Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) which empowers trial courts to punish an offender even if he or she is forgiven by legal heirs of a deceased person.

It is also reprehensible how ‘influential’ criminals receive preferential treatment in custody as was seen in Jatoi’s, Jaffer’s and Mir’s case.

But can we criticize our laws as being archaic when the practitioners of law refuse to abide by the principle of equality of citizens when passing judgements?

On a slightly positive note, the attorney general has decided to file a review petition against Jatoi’s acquittal, and the Senate has passed the Torture and Custodial Death Bill, which might give us a glimmer of hope that justice may prevail.

But let’s not be too idealistic.

Looking at the state of our criminal justice system, one is reminded of the famous quote from the Melian Dialogue penned by the Athenian historian Thucydides: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The question is, do we really want the law to remain a tool and justice to be an inaccessible ideal?

The writer is a human rights activist and expert on women and children’s rights.