Follow Us on Google News
The subject of law is extremely difficult, challenging, and hard to grasp. The most crucial expectation, though, is justice when people study law and work as solicitors or judges.
In addition to teaching lawyers and judges how to be fair, legal books also teach them how to use technicalities like the presumption of innocence to benefit their client or petitioner.
Justice is blind and the law has long arms, according to a proverb. But logic dictates that a blind person with long arms would likely punish the righteous while sparing the wicked and this is exactly what the law does in nearly every third-world country.
An accountability court in Lahore issued on Thursday the detailed verdict of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s acquittal in a graft reference pertaining to the alleged illegal allotment of plots in 1986. The judge said that the court’s decision to declare Nawaz a proclaimed offender in the case was “not in line with the parameters settled and followed by the apex court”.
It further added that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo had been subjected to “political victimization” through this case and directed the anti-graft watchdog and revenue authorities to release any seized properties of Nawaz and other applicants in this case.
In the written order, Judge Rao Abdul Jabbar, who had earlier announced the verdict, stated that the former government forced the anti-graft watchdog to file this reference against Nawaz in order to destroy the future of the three-time prime minister.
According to logic, either the prior judgment against Nawaz Sharif was incorrect or this one is incorrect? Either way both cannot be correct at the same time. Those two decisions must include some form of unfairness hidden behind the veil of fairness.
Was the magistrate who rendered the initial verdict against Nawaz Sharif ignorant of the law? Or the most recent choice is dictated by the law of necessity. Who or what is it?
Respecting a court verdict cannot be contested; however the question of which decision was correct still remains.
Is it really as simple as it looks for them to alter the Constitution and laws, force the court to rule as they please, or are there unseen forces at work to tip the scales in favor of their preferred politicians and against those who are the target of their wrath?
