Justice and injustices

On the 125th day (July 16, 2020) of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman's detention by NAB, on an alleged involvement with a 34-year-old land transaction, one is obliged to adapt the old maxim about water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink to: "Justice and justices everywhere, but even not a drop of fairness".

The Lahore High Court has denied Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman bail and provided a strange detailed order to justify its tentative verdict. In addition to the learned judges who rendered this curious decision, we have at this time a notable profusion of judges and concerns about justice. A former Supreme Court justice is the serving chairman of NAB.

The serving chief justice of Pakistan just a few days ago spoke on the sorry state of the legal and judicial sectors. The vice-chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association fears that the justice system of the country is headed for collapse. The ruling political party at the federal and two provincial levels is named the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – the Pakistan Movement for Justice. Yet, whether it be the glaring case of the chairman/CEO of the country's largest media group, or a man wrongly imprisoned for over 20 years and released only a few weeks ago, or a low-income citizen visiting a district court for years on end seeking resolution of his case pending for decades: justice remains elusive, expensive and excruciating.

In Mir Shakil's case, two questions arise. One: is there a covert element of seeking personal vengeance camouflaged under a weak but legally costumed facade? Have some features of the group's editorial policy so upset one or some individuals in state offices that " teaching Mir Shakil a lesson he will always remember " is the real objective behind his prolonged detention?

Two, or is the aim to intimidate the media in general in a period in which the sector is already beset with multiple crises of revenue, costs, safety, security, staff lay-offs, coercive pressures on distribution, new communication technologies et al?

Some of these crises are shared globally and some others can be traced to purely indigenous sources. Yet as there is always a tension between governments and news media – except in cases such as India in recent years where most of the news media are the snarling pets of Modi's Hindutva – it is speculated that Mir Shakil's persecution becomes a persuasive influence to keep Pakistani news media in line. For obvious reasons that need not be elaborated, if one or both of the above elements apply, their validity and their efficacy are spurious and doomed to fail. Personal vendettas are almost always ultimately exposed.

The news media's inherent duties cannot be forever curbed, particularly in a pluralist society with strong democratic instincts such as those in Pakistani society. Yes, despite abiding tribalism and feudalism in some areas, four military intrusions in 73 years, and some other repressive facets, the people cherish candid speech and discussion – traits that the news media are obliged to reflect. Which should not divert attention from the urgent need for reform in several dimensions of the media, starting with the role of media proprietors and including all professional features.

The continued detention of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman becomes a symbol for much that is flawed in our legal and judicial systems, and in our prosecutorial organizations such as NAB. While curative change should begin through parliament, the superior judiciary has an inescapable responsibility.

To reiterate what this writer submitted in The News in the second week of April 2020 – the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should take suo-motu notice of this gross aberration. This will help ensure that authentic justice becomes as profuse as the titles of justice that surround us.

The writer is a former senator and federal minister.

www.javedjabbar.com