Tazeen Akhtar
Finally, the Judge who sent Imaan Mazari and spouse to jail for 17 years without giving them a hearing , has rescinded (amended) his verdict but for a paragraph that was related to Four countries , Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. The honorable judge had noted ” These are designated terrorist states”.
Now on 30 Jan the Judge came to know that it was typo , clerical mistake by the steno of the court. He was enlightened about this after the spokesperson of Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to a question on 29 Jan as , “We have seen the judgment. These are views of the learned judge. Pakistan, of course, does not subscribe to this opinion. This kind of designation of terrorist states does not exist either in the UN parlance or under international law.”
Two of Four countries did not feel the shocks of the earthquake whose epicenter was under district and session court of Islamabad but the rest of the two, that are near were taken aback and responded in their own way through their missions in Islamabad. But these two , too seem to be satisfied after the amendment in the verdict despite the damage has been caused in the meanwhile.
The Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Hussain Andrabi responded to a question on Thursday as, ” We have seen the judgment. These are views of the learned judge. Pakistan, of course, does not subscribe to this opinion. This kind of designation of terrorist states does not exist either in the UN parlance or under international law.”
On Friday, as Daily Dawn reported, subsequently, an order from the judge, dated January 27, emerged today that said NCCIA Special Public Prosecutor Muhammad Usman Rana had filed an application on Jan 24 for “correction of errors … wherein due to typing mistake a sentence … was written due to a clerical mistake which is not supported by any statutory provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference so the some may be deleted because this sentence is vague and ambiguous”.
Quoting Section 152 of the Criminal Procedure, the order said that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
Thus, the judge said: “In the instant case there is no relevancy of the above said sertence and have no nexus with the question of determination of rights of the parties. This sentence is not supported by any statutory provision, judicial precedent, executive notification, international instrument or authoritative reference so, keeping in view the law laid down in the abovementioned esteemed citations, this application is accepted. Corsequently, the sentence is deleted.”
This is another hard to agree matter that someone applied to make correction in the order on the same date 24 and the correction was done on 27 Jan. If that is the truth, why the amended order was not shared in the media on the same date 27 ? Daily Dawn should have asked this question while bailing out the responsible person by publishing one side of story only.
Earlier on Thursday, the European Union’s (EU) Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Anouar El Anouni raised concerns over the conviction of Imaan and Hadi.
In a post on X, the EU official said their convictions “over social media activity goes against freedom of expression and independence of lawyers”.
“These are not only key democratic principles but also part of [Pakistan’s] international human rights commitments,” Anouni said.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has a “Consolidated List” of individuals, entities and other groups that it subjects to certain measures, such as sanctions, due to various reasons. While it may include certain government-affiliated departments, it does not name any country in its entirety. Therefore , only the honorable judge can explain why he sucked in the other countries when there was no need for that and no relevance whatsoever was there.
This is the state of affairs at the court of a senior judge who can award maximum / capital sentence in Pakistan. This is the end here or the real problem starts from here ? Lets see what questions arise from this all scene;
1- If it was the fault of the typist only, judge is supposed to see the final draft before its release?
2- What action has been taken against the responsible persons on issuance of a immature verdict raising concerns and reactions ?
3- What was the need to mention the names of these countries, whatever was the context or were the actual words of the judge?
4- As European Union was closely monitoring the case, the judge named these four countries only to satisfy the EU, more than his own conscience?
5- The verdicts from Pakistani courts can be issued without proper check and balance?
6- What is the legal status of the verdict when the judge himself admitted a big fault in the verdict and administered the amendment himself?
7- This judge can continue on incumbent seat after making this much mess in a case being watched internationally?
8- The accused boycotted the court saying , ” Mr. Judge, you are not doing justice, you are doing job only.” A judge who loses the trust of any party of the matter, is not supposed to continue the hearing, let alone issue the vedict.
9- Why the judge did not seek assistance from MOFA before issuing the verdict if he has changed it after the statement from the Spokesperson?
10- The judge referred to EU decisions , that made it clear , the judge is trying to satisfy EU on sentence to Mazari. Now when EU has expressed dissatisfaction, what the judge will do ? Another amendment in already amended verdict ?
In short, the purpose to mention four states as terrorists was only to please EU and that purpose could not be served.
The poet has said on the same situation ;
” NA KHUDA HE MILA NA WISAAL E SANAM”
