“Since when do you have to agree with people to defend them from injustice”– Lillian Hellman
If anyone needs reminding of July 20, 2021: in the dead of the night, as most Pakistanis prepared to celebrate Eidul Azha, 28-year-old Noor Mukadam was battling for her life as Zaheer Jaffer beat, raped and decapitated her. Almost four years later, Jaffer’s legal team has exhausted all judicial avenues to free him of his crimes, with the Supreme Court upholding the death penalty for murder.
Noor Mukadam’s family has expressed its relief and gratitude. They have put up the most dignified fight that no family should have to go through. Women and their allies have celebrated the verdict as a win for all women of Pakistan – a small weakening of the patriarchy and a glimmer of what accountability can look like.
Since her brutal murder, Noor has become a symbol of so much more than just another statistic on violence against women – for the women of this country the case alarmed us, united us and now with the Supreme Court verdict has helped us breathe a sigh of relief that a murderer will not be allowed to go free. Though the death penalty and its merits remain open to debate as do the merits of reducing the sentence of kidnapping and rape against Jaffer, the overarching message has been made clear: you cannot kill a woman and get away with it.
Yet, if one works in the space of gender-based violence (GBV), either in the court system or on policy and legislation, it is difficult to view this case as a watershed moment for Pakistan or a shift in the way violence against women will be viewed in the future. If anything, the questions pile up – can we expect this case to set a precedent? Will rapists now fear the justice system? Will impunity for violent men be a thing of the past?
In this case, it was forensically proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zahir Jaffer was the rapist and murderer of Noor Mukadam. Yet even in a case so obviously straightforward, there are gaps in how the case was approached and glaring missed opportunities. First, some judges passed remarks that imply that the burden of such situations lies, and remains, on women – this is unfair and incorrect. Second, the judiciary missed the opportunity to address consent in rape cases, even with vast examples of jurisprudence globally to help guide them. Third, they failed to understand kidnapping and the complexities around it, dismissing it in this case because Noor met Zahir with her own free will.
Noor’s evidenced attempt to escape while being dragged back indoors by Jaffer says something completely different from how the judges interpreted it. In fact, it is a fundamental gap in this case to have dismissed, without arguments, the crimes of violent rape, kidnapping and coercion on the simplistic narrative of their being a relationship between Noor and Zahir. Who will tell our judiciary that Noor meeting a man is not what is up for (moral) judgement; they are required only to look at the crime and illegality that is committed. The death sentence for murder is the only thing that has been upheld.
We want to believe that justice happens only inside the courtroom – where a process is followed, with convictions or acquittals based solely on evidence and forensics. Legally, yes, that is how justice is, or should be, served. It should also be truly blind to the victim’s or the perpetrator’s societal influence or privilege.
It would, however, be naive to think the judiciary alone has upheld this verdict. Civil society’s consistent advocacy for Jaffer to be brought to justice has ensured that a judicial system partial to patriarchal undertones remains in check. The persistent attempts of the defence team to bring Noor’s character into disrepute would have been given much more weight if civil society, social media, print media and media houses did not remain watchdogs of the judiciary.
There are an overwhelming number of cases of violence against women in which the judiciary has tilted towards blaming the woman on some pretext or other, allowing perpetrators partial and full immunity. According to some reports, there is a less than a three per cent conviction rate in rape cases – various structural barriers contribute to this figure, including the narrow and outdated attitude and outlook of judges towards women.
The privilege and societal influence of both parties in this case has also helped maintain the limelight and not delay the case further than four years. In cases where the victims’ families are poor or have no influence, cases have gone on for decades.
Civil society did not pressurise the judiciary to conclude what it has – it is the evidence and forensics that have led to this verdict and sentence. But in cases where the accused is monied, male and privileged, the judicial system needs the weight of civil society and relentless public pressure to hold rich, powerful men to account. In this case, like other cases in the past, civil society forced justice to happen.
The utopian idea that institutions alone can deliver justice is comforting but unrealistic. The hard truth is this: when a judicial system is weak, entrenched in a patriarchal outlook and used too often as a tool for the powerful at the expense of the powerless, it takes the weight of civil society voices and human rights activists to hold even those institutions to account, whose raison d’etre it is to deliver justice in the first place.
May Noor rest in peace. May her family find the solace they so deserve. And may her legacy remain one of holding a bright light up to the violent men in our society so they can no longer hide from accountability and justice.
The writer is a lawyer and development consultant. She tweets/posts @BenazirJatoi
