Although the role of the lawyer is limited only to the extent of presenting his client` case in the court, yet the importance of the way of pleading the case cannot be over looked at all. The better he presents the case before the judge to convince him, there emerge more chances for the client to win the case. That is the reason why every party tries to hire the services of the best lawyer available so that it can increase the chances of winning its case.
Considering the importance of the lawyers, what about the accused who does not have any lawyer to plead his case, or has been deprived of this right? Furthermore, would there be any chances to win the case when all the lawyer has already started considering his client as a criminal even before any judicial trial, no matter he really committed that crime or not?
The need to state all these things emerged after the Bar Associations decided not to plead the case of Malik Riyaz in the courts. Not only that, they also banned the entry of Zahid Bukhari advocate in all the Bars premises just because of the “crime” of presenting Malik Riyaz` case in the Supreme court.
As per universally accepted and practiced principle, an accused is assumed to be innocent unless and until he is proved guilty in the court. Perhaps because of the same reason, the accused is given the full right or liberty to defend him in the courts. In this context, even the government provides its legal assistance by way of appointing an advocate on behalf of him in case of need. This practice is very common all over the world. Then, why did the Bar Associations make that decision? Were they not aware of this principle?
If, according to Bar Associations, a charge (of giving bribes or being involved in any intrigue against the Supreme Court) is enough to consider Malik Riyaz as convicted, then what is the need to take him to the court and to hold the hearings for this purpose? Why don’t the lawyers of the Bar Associations demand to hang him without any hearing? Why should the precious time of the judges be wasted in the trials then?
We know that despite the professional expertise of the lawyers, they have no authority to declare or consider any accused as criminal or innocent without the completion of the due judicial process. In contrast to it, only judges have the authority to make this declaration through their judgment after the proceedings of the case. Then, why did the lawyers` community became the judge itself to consider Malik RIyaz convicted? Would such an announcement from Bar Associations of a country be appreciated and considered as ethical or logical in any civilized society of the world?
Moreover, it is also a part of our judicial process that the lawyers plead the cases on behalf of the accused no matter what sorts of charges are there against him. Moreover, the lawyers do not call it their mistake of defending for the criminals. That is the reason that we never see any lawyer doing penance after the court has declared his client the criminal. Can the Bar Associations give any example of those lawyers who repent on defending for the killers, rapists, robbers and traitors?
They cannot do so because generally the lawyers do not term it as their mistake. Rather, they call it their profession to plead for their clients for which they charge fees. In contrast to it, they are unhappy due to the reason that they could not get their clients acquitted from the case.
So, when the lawyers do not give importance to court’s judgment declaring their clients criminals, instead of it, they take it as a part of their profession, then, how and why can they place any restriction on the lawyers taking the case of Malik RIyaz? Why have they adopted such a controversial policy against him?
The media reports indicate that the accused of robberies, kidnappings, extortions, target killings and even the suicide attacks have been released so frequently that the law-enforcement agencies claim that all their efforts are going in vain due to this. Of course, all the allegedly robbers, target killers and suicide attackers were released because of the hard work of the same lawyers.
Now, the question is, why did the lawyers and their associations not ban pleading for the accused of so severe crimes? Can any other crime be more severe than killing a person?? When no, why is there a biased attitude against Malik Riyaz? Does such an attitude of the Bar Associations not look to be the violation of the fundamental rights?
The lawyers` community will have to keep in their mind that this is the same judiciary that they themselves called the most honest and independent in the history of the country. If it is so, then why are they taking law in their own hands? When the lawyers` community is try to make judgments by themselves, why will an already frustrated common man wait till the courts` judgments? Will he not take the law in his hands too?
Pakistan is the country where it takes no time to altogether change the situation. The time may come when the people in these Bar Associations may have to face similar severe charges and that there may be the same restriction on the remaining lawyers to lead their cases, then???
So, they need to revisit their policies before it is too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment