Model courts help unclog arteries of justice

55 people awarded death, 170 get life sentences in 10 days

ISLAMABAD: The director general of the 116 model courts of Pakistan, Sohail Nasir, has released the performance report of the courts during the period from April 1 till April 20.

The 116 courts issued verdicts in 756 murder cases and 1,110 narcotics cases. Nasir said that deciding old cases is the priority for model courts and this formula has been acted upon since the start of the month.

According to details recently released about the model courts, a total of 7,256 witnesses recorded statements till April 20. The courts sentenced 55 people to death, while 170 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Another 402 culprits were given minor punishments. Total fines of Rs76.915 million were also imposed.

Though the performance period covers three weeks, practically speaking, the work was actually done in just 10 working days because during this time, there were 3 weekend holidays on Sundays, the courts did not function for two days due to the national judicial conference, and lawyers court boycott on the other five days.

In all, 709 cases dating from 1985 till 2015 were decided.

On the other hand, Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Amjad Shah had issued an announcement on April 15 that the PBC (PBC) will protest in front of the Supreme Court on April 25.

During the protest, lawyers will be prevented from appearing in the SC. The bar council had announced that the lawyers will not appear in the model courts until their demands regarding Article 22-A and 22-B are accepted.

Legal experts say that the lawyers have some objection regarding the courts. The legal experts also had different opinions on the model courts, saying that given the current situation of dysfunction, model courts are not a bad idea but they are not a long-term solution.

The permanent solution is strengthening of the whole district judiciary which — for a variety of reasons – appears to be too daunting a task, some of the experts said.

Talking to The Express Tribune, senior lawyer Barrister Ummar Ziauddin said model courts conducting daily hearings are an
excellent intervention from the NJPMC. The intervention is aimed at unclogging the arteries of justice in Pakistan and to address the twin vices of backlogs and delays, he explained.

He said that strict recommendations have been proposed to discourage adjournments from lawyers so that trials are concluded on schedule. This is completely in accord with due process rights under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, he said, while admitting that some of the concerns raised by lawyers do have merit.

“Courts should not compromise on justice at the altar of quick disposal of cases. Be that as it may, the bar, being the second wheel of the same chariot, with the bench being the first, must work in complete unison for the success of model courts throughout the country,” he said.

According to the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes of Advocates, a lawyer has four primary obligations – Conduct with other advocates, duty to clients, duty to the court and conduct with regard to the public in general. The fourth obligation is equally important as the first three, if not more, he opined.

“And lawyers as actors in the justice system owe it to the masses and ordinary litigants to do whatever they can for the just, swift and speedy resolution of cases,” he concluded.

Senior lawyer Adnan Haider Randhawa said that separating certain cases from the bulk and making their trial speedy, can be a way of experimenting with the current system, as has been done through model courts, but its over-ambitiousness has triggered the backlash.

He said we can either have trials that can go on for years, as is the existing situation, or we can complete them in a few days as in the case of model courts. “Is there no way in between?” he asked.

“Lawyers have to deal with multiple cases at different forums including urgent ones. How can they be expected to drop everything else? Secondly, when pushed from high echelons, lower judiciary tends to focus more on numbers than due process. Justice rushed is justice crushed,” he concluded.