Yesterday, Spokesperson for Ministry of Foreign Affairs Zahid Hafeez Chaudhry informed the media about Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi tele conversation with US Secretary of States Tony Blinken with respect to Daniel Pearl case, he said that Foreign Minister Qureshi assured the Secretary Blinken to serve the justice through legal means in the case. According to him, Federal government had taken steps in this regard, besides joining the Sindh government in its petition in Daniel Peral case in Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Federal government filed a separate petition in the top court of the Country against acquittal of the accused, Umar Saeed Shaikh.
Presently, the Daniel Pearl case has rebirthed after 18 years when Pakistan Supreme Court ordered the government to release the accused while giving its decision on the petitions of Sindh government and the family of Daniel Pearl to stall the previous order of Sindh High court calling for the release of Umar Saeed Shaikh. Earlier, The Sindh Hight court said there was not enough evidence to convict the Sheikh in the murder of Daniel Pearl. According to details, the three-judge Supreme Court ruled 2 to 1 in favor of upholding Sheikh’s acquittal and ordered his released.
The case had taken the shape of political issue rather than justice to an individual likewise accused or the deceased’s family. In fact, Courts are bound to provide justice as their prime responsibility. The courts construct the building of justice based on evidences provided to them by the investigators and prosecutor or the victims. The court itself has no mechanism to get details or evidences of the incident / case under trial. The United States government took deep interest in the case and closely monitored the court proceeding throughout the last 18 years. The Daniel Pearl’s family hired the Advocate Faisal Siddiqui as, their lawyer to plead the case instead relying on the Pakistan’s government prosecutors to ensure the penalty to the murderers. At the same time, previous US administration continuously sorted to political pressure on Pakistan with respect to Daniel Pearl case. Despite all these facts, the court’s verdict came in the shape of release of the accused person due to lack of evidences. This means, that there were not such concrete evidences, which support the theory that Umar Shaikh was involved in the assassination of the Daniel Pearl back in 2002.
This is not the single case of Daniel Pearl, in which Pakistani Courts maintained the law and uphold the justice despite of huge pressure from the government of Pakistan and abroad. Pakistani Courts never budged to such pressures in the past also. It is an open fact, that during 2008 to 2014, hundreds of alleged terrorists were apprehended by the Pakistan’s LEAs during CT operations or physical face to face encounters. But many of those were released by the courts due to non-availability of the evidences or absence of witnesses. One can’t say that the Judges delivered the verdicts for release of those alleged terrorists were less patriotic than any other Pakistanis, however, they were bound to abide the law. At that time, a huge anti-Judiciary sentiment were developed in the general Public of the country.
Currently, there is a general perception, that recent steps of federal government are politically motivated and driven by the diplomatic curtesy, otherwise, the case has reached to its logical end. Forced justice is otherwise injustice.
Ones desire to punish someone without the proofs can’t be termed as justice. US government efforts for its citizen are commendable but it should honor the Pakistan’s court decision. Pakistan government also done sufficient in this regard as its international responsibility.
However, to abide the illogical demand is not possible for the government in the presence of independent judiciary, active civil society, and vibrant media. If US government has some more evidences it should present those to the court, so the court can review its previous judgment based on that, otherwise, the Court is rightly said that it can’t act according to the desires of the government whether local of abroad.
