The legal fraternity, it seems, would prefer not to extend constitutional rights to those it disagrees with. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
Lawyers, of all people, should recognise basic concepts like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ‘every defendant has a right to legal counsel’. These concepts are the bedrock of their profession. The legal fraternity, however, it seems would prefer not to extend constitutional rights to those it disagrees with. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the decision of various bar associations across the country to ban Zahid Bukhari, counsel for tycoon Malik Riaz, as well as Aitzaz Ahsan, who represented former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, from their premises. Their thinking seems to be that Riaz, by accusing the chief justice’s son of accepting bribes from him, has ridiculed and questioned the integrity of the Supreme Court and so his lawyer must be tarred. Mr Ahsan has been treated in a similar manner, too, as his client was found guilty on charges of contempt of court.
As a contrast, consider that Eric Holder — before he became attorney general of the US — represented those accused of terrorism being held in Guantanamo Bay and that, too, pro bono. Holder was incensed that the US government was denying these men free and fair trials and so was willing to work without pay on their behalf. He considered their right to attorneys and a trial so sacrosanct that he was willing to be associated with men allegedly involved in waging war against the US. Yet, he has now risen to become the top law-enforcement official of his country.
Some would say that the legal community in Pakistan has shown a distinct lack of tolerance ever since it won its great victory and the chief justice along with other justices of the Supreme Court, who refused to accept General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s PCO, were reinstated. First, there was the deplorable way Musharraf-loyalist Sher Afghan Niazi was treated. Then, who can forget the way lawyers showered the murderer of Salmaan Taseer with rose petals and praised Mumtaz Qadri’s lawyer. In the case of Mr Ahsan and Mr Bukhari, the lawyers should follow the lead of the man they claim to protect — the chief justice. When allegations were made against his son, he immediately took suo motu notice on the matter and recused himself from the case. The lawyers need to demonstrate the same tolerance.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 22nd, 2012.
More in Editorial
Entertaining electricity
Pakistani lawyers are over politicised
Recommend
We are at the point of no return. Destruction is awaiting us.
Recommend
Very well written and in my opinion lawyers should register themselves as political party rather than practicing.
Recommend
Our lawyers are POS, why isnt the SC regulating these Bar associations?
Recommend
The lawyers are pretty tolerant to terrorists, Qadri, and would even offer namaz janaza for OBL. They have no stomach when it comes to their professional job and secular people and elected govt. Not only the lawyers but the LHC CJ had offered to take the case/cause of Qadri without any money! It is not surprising that Qadri is living in jail like a hero and not hanged.
Recommend
What does the sharia say about right to legal counsel?
Recommend
6 months if we dont control ourselves i dont think we will ever be able to undo the destruct button
Recommend
Why expect tolerance from our lawyers when it is barely visible in any strata of Pakistani society?
Recommend
Lawyers are good when police, judges and common peoples have to teach lesson. They are good in beating and more expert than police.
Recommend
What do we expect – we may as well just stick beards on these lawyers
Recommend