Media should spare courts in Pakistan

State was the only opponent, which defence counsels used to argue their cases against. Now they have to argue it against the media as well.
The first ‘official’ duty that staff perform early in the morning in courts is to place newspapers in judges’ retiring rooms. As a result, judges are already opinionated about the crimes in their respective districts before they even sit in courts, courtesy of crime reports in these newspapers. The argument of defence counsel has very little to influence in judges’ mind because the media has already argued the case well in prosecution’s favour even before the court time starts.
Among things that senior lawyers tell associate lawyers everyday in bar rooms is that “a judge speaks through his judgments” and “a good judge does not read newspaper”. Contrary to these modern legal proverbs, now judges have started speaking through the media and have voraciously started reading newspapers.
This scribe once went to congratulate a lawyer who was elevated to the Lahore High Court. After exchanging pleasantries, the lawyer-turned judge told this scribe that how his staff showed him the clipping of a BBC newsreport which contained the judge’s name. The judge was visibly very happy over his dutiful staff, the true report and the credibility of the B.B.C. A great deal of time was spent discussing the report, which speaks volume about the importance judges pay to their portrayal in the media.
Now judgments have stopped speaking, instead breaking news and scrolling text at the bottom of television screen speak louder than judgments. And these hastily-run media reports often confuse viewers because people in the media know a little about procedural laws in Pakistan.
A growing tendency is also witnessed among complainant parties to approach local journalists to get favourable reports published a day before the decision of the bail or the case. Now the judge has to keep in mind the merits of the case and the monstrous public opinion which has been formed after the publication of that report.
The adjective-laden media reports make the society, including judges, biased against accused. When the whole country has seen a media report about the “killers”, no judge can judiciously apply his mind in the case. The foremost thought on his mind would be what would people think if he acquits the “killer”. Many innocent people are condemned just because the judges can’t tolerate the public pressure.
Just remember how much fuss the media created when a minor girl servant died in a prominent lawyer’s home in Lahore’s defence housing authority. Live reports were aired and after a few days of sensation, the media forgot about the issue as it had never happened. The media declared the lawyer, who was a former president of the Lahore Bar Association, guilty even before the police investigation completed.
In most Western countries, the media can’t even name the suspects or accused before the trial is over. In the UK, there is a growing trend of getting media injunctions wherein the media is barred from commenting, reporting or discussing a subjudice case. Superior courts sometimes also issue super injunctions wherein the media is barred from discussing, commenting or reporting the subjudice case and even the injunction itself.
In Pakistan, things are different. The media has set up a permanent corner outside the apex court where lawyers address it before and after the court session. My friends in the media would testify that only a handful of lawyers refuse to comment on the media because the matter is subjudice whereas a majority of them is happy and willing to discuss the whole case before television cameras. Why people argue their cases before the media when they have approached courts in this regard?
This trend is likely to go unchecked, unless some sane voices among bar, bench and the media realise the damage it is doing to our judicial system. The bar needs to arrange workshops for reporters where they should be informed about legal ethics, right of accused and how media’s commentary on a case may jeopardise its decision.
The superior courts in our country need to issue some guidelines to the media in this regard. They also need to realise and tell subordinate judicial officers about the insignificance media reports, which can portray black as white one day and vice versa the other day.
With due respect to our friends in the media, we cannot deny that the bar and the bench owe a lot to the media because of its unquestioning support for the judicial restoration movement. However, journalists have to realise that suspense and law can’t co-exist. The media can cash in on its ability to create suspense somewhere other than courts. The media is the real power in the world, but reporters should spare courts from their sensational skills because “the freedom of the press means two things: freedom from the press and freedom for the press”.

Why my father don't want me to join judiciary

My father has remained a civil judge at the start of his legal career. His first and last posting was in Sahiwal district (7-7-1982 to 8-10-83). During the first couple of days of his job, he came across a case in which a patwari (revenue officer) was harassing a poor peasant.
My father decided the stay application in poor peasant’s favour. The judgment consisted of only four lines. Now I have realized that why I love brevity. The patwari appealed the judgment before the district judge who reversed the order passed by my father. The district judge, Saeed Sabbir, wrote a four-page judgment, explaining in detail that why the order of lower court was to be reversed.
The peasant appealed the Lahore High Court. The high court judge, Justice Munir, wrote one-and-a-half page of judgment setting aside the order of the district judge and agreeing with the decision of the lower court, which my father was presiding over.
Soon after my father had passed the order, the district judge started sending show-cause notices to my father. My father jokingly remembers them as love letters from his boss. The letter demanded justifications such as why my father was two minutes late on Thursday? Why he was four minute late on Saturday? My father was a new entrant in judiciary so he asked a senior colleague about the show cause notices he was getting.
The colleague told my father that the brother of that patwari was a professor who used to tutor the children of the district judge free of cost. Apparently, the district judge was very angry over the ‘insolent’ civil judge who passed an order against the teacher of his children.

Why can't judiciary convict corrupt politicians?

Not a day passes when the media doesn’t unearth a big financial scam involving politicians, bureaucrats or army generals. The scam help the media feed itself for couple of days. Hawkish statements get prominent positions in newspaper and headlines. After that a silent prevails on the issue and the media finds something else.
It’s very rare to see a politician being convicted over corruption charges in India and Pakistan. Let’s narrow down the discussion to Pakistan. The country has a very big anti-corruption department, supported by the national accountability bureau, and assisted by numerous investigating agencies, but both the large orgaisations are not result-oriented.
Corrupt people are too cunning to be caught. Cunningness alone can’t save a politician, government official or general from the accountability. They have contacts with the people in the power and with the ‘holy’ people in the judiciary.
The first-ever statement given by a person embroiled in a corruption scandal is that he trusts the courts and judges. Moonis Elahi did the same soon after returning Pakistan from abroad. Hosting a reception in his honour, he said he trusts the courts. Shahzain Bugti did the same. Nawaz Sharif says the same although with a bit of flattery in its tone.
Politics in Pakistan and India is life long occupation. One term in opposition and the other in power is a routine. Judges and investigating officers have a fixed tenure in their office which ultimately depends on the whim of the politicians. A non-graduate politician who sits in the assembly is too powerful to ruin the career of a bright bureaucrat, an investigating officer and a judge as well. There are too many strings attached with any government sector job to make the post a mere puppet. All the strong, honest, hardworking officers are being manipulated with the strings, majority of which are controlled by the politicians.
This fact alone is sufficient to scare the investigation agencies from collecting concrete evidence against the corrupt people. An operative from the Federal Investigation Agency, which is headed by Interior Minister Rehman Malik, can’t dare to do anything against Ghulam Qadir Gillani, whose father (PM Gillani) is the boss of Rehman Malik.
Nothing happened to Shahzain Bugti for “possessing a huge cache of illegal arms”, all the people convicted by NAB are still in power, Moonis is likely to go scotfree and all the PML-N’s vows to bring the former Punjab government to accountability vanished in air.

Fooling the boss

A session or district judge is the senior most judge in any district. Often the two offices are held by one person and he is called district and session judge. All remaining judges are his subordinates. The promotion of subordinate judges largely depends on the annual confidential report (ACR) which is written by the session judge. Various tactics are adopted to get a good ACR.

Once there was a shrewd civil judge who wanted to be in his boss’s good books. One day the civil judge went to the grocery store where session judge would use to go. The civil judge was wearing a skull cap similar to one worn by people during prayers. He was wearing clothes slightly torn near the chest pocket.

The civil judge went in the shop and started buying small quantities of various items. He asked the shopkeeper to make the bill which came around Rs 1,000. The judge came near the shopkeeper and introduced himself in whispers and told him that he would pay the bill on his next salary as he was short of money.

The shopkeeper was shocked to learn about the poverty of a civil judge. When the session judge came to the shop after some days, the shopkeeper told him the whole incident. The session judge felt sorry for the ‘poor’ civil judge and gave him a very good ACR, believing him to be very fair.

It was couple of years later when the session judge came to know the real evil face behind that civil judge.

Dialogue

Judge: I will not adjourn the hearing of this case, as I am pressed by my bosses to dispose it of as early as possible. Tomorrow will be the next hearing.

Lawyer1: Sir, I am busy in some other court. Can you please adjourn it to after 4 days.

Judge: I can’t. It’s a five year old case and needs to be disposed of. I have to give weeklyexplanation to by bosses.

Lawyer1: Sir, I will assist you in dispossing of this case, but I need some time for the prepration.

Judge: I can’t adjourn the case. You have to come tomorrow again.

Lawyer1: I will come tomorrow, anger visible from his voice.

Judge: I have written an order that both the advocates are ‘expected’ to arrive tomorrow.

Lawyer2: I object the word ‘expected’ and want it to be removed.

Judge: I won’t.

Lawyer2: You should.

Judge: I will look into the matter but won’t remove it.

Lawyer2 appears relieved on this ‘relief’.

Lawyer1 has been seeing this negotiation on the ‘relief’

Judge: Lawyers do not co-operate with the judiciary.

Lawyer1 shots back a small speech in the court room of this mining town. Around 5 lawyers and equal number of litigants besides the court staff are present in the court.

Lawyer1: It was folly of lawyers to support the sacked chief justice. We did a mistake going to jails, sacrifycing our income and suffering our families. The superior judiciary has always protected its vested interests and they will keep doing it.

Judge gets pale and drops the pen on the table.

Lawyer1: There is no differene between the current judiciary and the previous one.

The court room now has the silence of a graveyard. All lawyers, litigants and the court staff looks at the Lawyer1.

Lawyer2 is perplexed. Judge fails in his attempt to look normal. Lawyer2 nervously shifts his body weight from one foot to the other.

Lawyer2: Sir, what has been said by the Lawyer1 is not owned by me.

Judge: Who is saying that you own this statement.
Lawyer2: I just want to clarify.

Judge: Since you have not given the statement, you don’t have to clarify your position.

Lawyer1: I own my statement, come what may.

Judge adjourns the proceedings.