Faizan Muhammad (Pakistan)

It pains me when advising clients, when the complete conversation is me persuading them to take legal action rather than taking the law in their own hands. The Pakistani society much like any other developing society has a very whimsical relationship with the law enforcement agencies. Even when reporting a crime people have a general tendency to look for people that might have connections with the law enforcementauthorities. Crimes go unreported primarily because people are unable to find any connection with the police or other law enforcement agency. This is not to blame the law enforcement agencies but more importantly, this is a critic on the entire ecosphere of law and all things related.

The deeply troubled and procedurally shackled legal system has been put in place not to provide justice but rather is an exercise to ensure that all things “procedure” are complied with and often times failure to abide by the procedure is what leads to no convictions. This over years has eroded the confidence of the masses in the judicial system. If a tenant can live in a house rent free for a minimum of a year without even putting up a defense to the landlords claim, that is a very basic example of non-operational judicial system. Add to that the countless bar council strikes and the judges being on vacations and the lawyer’s lethargy, the time delay become a significant factor in all thing’s litigation.

This is not to say that the core issue of the Pakistani judicial system is the procedural inadequacy, the law itself has become moot, the legal debate between the black letter approach and the golden principle seems extinguished within the Pakistani jurisprudence rather the debate has become whether to act by one’s self or to report to law enforcement agencies. In such an ecosphere the blasphemy law stands out like a sore thumb as the ambit of the law is so wide and the punishments so harsh that it the general public chose to take matters in their own hands and act in a violent manner often times leading to loss of life. The crime of blasphemy has become so serious that no investigation is required a mere allegation is more than enough for blood thirst mob to turn up seeking blood.

Without going into the merits of the law Section 295- C which reads:

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, …. shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This broad definition allows people to term any act as blasphemy and leading them to become executioners. The idea being that if reported the accused will go free due to inadequate judicial procedure. It is for this reason that we see blood thirsty mobs running to kill alleged blasphemers without even proper appreciation of the facts. It is pertinent to mention here that the allegation of blasphemy is enough for a mob to start burning personal property and causing life endangerment. The Sialkot incident where the mob burned a Sri Lankan manager is an example of where Priyantha Kumara Diyawadana was only accused of blasphemy and in a couple of hours was killed by the violent mob. The recent Sargodha incident is another recent example of how a violent mob can become charged by a mere allegation. Although the Lahore anti-terrorism court found 6 men guilty the core reason for such attacks was never addressed.

Mob lynching over blasphemy allegations has seen a significant rise in the past 10 years as the judicial system continues to erode. The need of the hour is to rethink how the judicial system can restore its confidence, no more patch work of transferring judges or making special court will bring back this confidence. A systematic and well thought out structural change needs to take place which addresses not only procedural but also the substantive law.