"By arresting Mir Shakeel ur Rehman NAB did not gain honour; in fact, it lost respect" - Mufti Muneeb

[Fairer]

NAB was formed to twist political opponents of the govt if you look at its past. There is a very high perspective that independence of NAB is tarnished.
Selective justice is worse then no justice.

 

[Eyeaan]

NAB was formed to twist political opponents of the govt if you look at its past. There is a very high perspective that independence of NAB is tarnished.
Selective justice is worse then no justice.

If you misguided speech is over then look at the facts.
The case is about bribes/illegal transaction of state property to an influential businessman and his connections to corrupt government officials. It has nothing to do with journalism however you may try to portray it. Why don't you simply tell us that a person involved in journalism business is automatically pardoned from all of his business crimes! Let the accused defend him in the court - why not!
Anyway, nice try to defend crimes by politicizing them and with a speech.

 

[Shareef Insaan]

NAB was formed to twist political opponents of the govt if you look at its past. There is a very high perspective that independence of NAB is tarnished.
Selective justice is worse then no justice.

If Nab and Judicary do there job properly all big criminals like nawaz, shabaz, zardari, mir shakil would have been in jails not on bails.

 

[A.jokhio]

After taqi usmani, he also has come forward to support mir jafer shakeel..Looks like both so called muftis are on payroll and with an agenda..

Shame on muneeb ur rehman...lost even last bit of his credibility...

 

[Fairer]

If you misguided speech is over then look at the facts.
The case is about bribes/illegal transaction of state property to an influential businessman and his connections to corrupt government officials. It has nothing to do with journalism however you may try to portray it. Why don't you simply tell us that a person involved in journalism business is automatically pardoned from all of his business crimes! Let the accused defend him in the court - why not!
Anyway, nice try to defend crimes by politicizing them and with a speech.

If you have come to this conclusion that I am defending any individuals crime then you have understood it wrongly. All I am saying is that the current NAB has lost its trades of free/fair accountability. There are many instances where it should have taken steps against the in-power houses ( will not go in details ). Once you select whom to pick and whom to drop then you lose the prime component of existence of NAB and in this case the justice. Thereby you allowed all criminals to point fingers on the impartiality of the system.

 

[Dream Seller]

I wasn’t a follower of this Mufti but he’s lost all his respect in my eyes if he had any

 

[Digital_Pakistani]

 

[Eyeaan]

If you have come to this conclusion that I am defending any individuals crime then you have understood it wrongly. All I am saying is that the current NAB has lost its trades of free/fair accountability. There are many instances where it should have taken steps against the in-power houses ( will not go in details ). Once you select whom to pick and whom to drop then you lose the prime component of existence of NAB and in this case the justice. Thereby you allowed all criminals to point fingers on the impartiality of the system.

Charges of pick and chose are unavoidable, for all-times and for each accountability institution because always only a small fraction of criminal are caught and charged. More slip through the system. willfully or not.
The charge that there are in-power cases maybe very right however, first the current charges are old before the current government (and Shehbaz's cases also erupted during an old investigation). and secondly, let's accept that every Czar institution such as nab will go after the cases where the collection of evidence is easy and with lesser hurdles from bureaucracy (which often is the prime instigator of the crimes). You may say these biases are present but that doesn't essentially proves mal-intent.
If the memory serves right, each and every accused has raised similar objection, be that nab, or superior courts or some special court or even police. If such objection are ultimately defense to save the criminal then no crime can be charged ever. Your intent and objections may be noble and right but what it translate to on the ground is quite obvious.

 

[immii]

CRIMINAL GEO NEWS GROUP.

 

[Fairer]

Charges of pick and chose are unavoidable, for all-times and for each accountability institution because always only a small fraction of criminal are caught and charged. More slip through the system. willfully or not.
The charge that there are in-power cases maybe very right however, first the current charges are old before the current government (and Shehbaz's cases also erupted during an old investigation). and secondly, let's accept that every Czar institution such as nab will go after the cases where the collection of evidence is easy and with lesser hurdles from bureaucracy (which often is the prime instigator of the crimes). You may say these biases are present but that doesn't essentially proves mal-intent.
If the memory serves right, each and every accused has raised similar objection, be that nab, or superior courts or some special court or even police. If such objection are ultimately defense to save the criminal then no crime can be charged ever. Your intent and objections may be noble and right but what it translate to on the ground is quite obvious.

You are right the accused do raise questions on the verdict but unfortunately there are loopholes in the system and if they are not plugged then it will go on and on.
However if the impartiality and unbiased decisions of these institutions are seen to be observed and demonstrated and being witnessed by public then the slogans of criminals dies out on its own.
On the other hand if partiality is seen on verdicts, then a lifeline is given to the drowning criminals and of course they will catch it to the full.
"not only justice must be done, but also seen to be done"

 

[akinternational]

reha karo??? in ghaddaron ko bhi giraftar karo jo abhi tak bahar hain...
............Wahid hal ISLAMI INQELAB, sabr karo......................

 

[Eyeaan]

You are right the accused do raise questions on the verdict but unfortunately there are loopholes in the system and if they are not plugged then it will go on and on.
However if the impartiality and unbiased decisions of these institutions are seen to be observed and demonstrated and being witnessed by public then the slogans of criminals dies out on its own.
On the other hand if partiality is seen on verdicts, then a lifeline is given to the drowning criminals and of course they will catch it to the full.
"not only justice must be done, but also seen to be done"

This cliche "Seen To be Done" has no political or public opinion dimension, as often portrayed.
That means that a) judges are strictly unbiased, b) prosecution is sufficiently fair, c) prosecution's witnesses are truthful, d) accused is provided the needed information for cross examination, e) accused is provided all legal avenues for defense and access and f) trial is open.
Criminal trials are not public opinion or popularity contest nor they should be turned into one. rather such a notion would be travesty of justice. Defense through politics or scandalizing courts is common but in fact that is a form of blackmailing of legal system,

 

[Masud Javed]

all of these mullahs are exposing themselves

 

[Citizen X]

Saray harami ek hi tarah key hai, Gub ganja jail mein that to PM-LUN ki tamam siyasat sirf us ki rihayi ke liye thi. Aur abb Jew News Group ki tamama sahafat Mir Jaffar Shakeel ki rihai ke liye hai

 

[Fairer]

This cliche "Seen To be Done" has no political or public opinion dimension, as often portrayed.
That means that a) judges are strictly unbiased, b) prosecution is sufficiently fair, c) prosecution's witnesses are truthful, d) accused is provided the needed information for cross examination, e) accused is provided all legal avenues for defense and access and f) trial is open.
Criminal trials are not public opinion or popularity contest nor they should be turned into one. rather such a notion would be travesty of justice. Defense through politics or scandalizing courts is common but in fact that is a form of blackmailing of legal system,

Unfortunately the political personalities trials are of public opinions. They often draw power from decisions of the courts and I can quote many examples of present and past.
Needless to say make and break of govts are often dependent on the courts verdict.
In our country the judicial system is not ideal and flaws are there. This is sadly the true picture.
If you want to expel the opinion of partiality then across the board accountability have to be done.

 

[Hate_Nooras]

So the same haraamis that call IK selected are begging him to release their crooked paymaster. This is funny. They are shitting bricks and I hope IK tells them to and f*** themselves

 

[Eyeaan]

Unfortunately the political personalities trials are of public opinions. They often draw power from decisions of the courts and I can quote many examples of present and past.
Needless to say make and break of govts are often dependent on the courts verdict.
In our country the judicial system is not ideal and flaws are there. This is sadly the true picture.
If you want to expel the opinion of partiality then across the board accountability have to be done.

But perhaps "across the board accountability" is another cliche - laden with politics and opinions, but less on the reality or concrete measures and facts.
First Shakil Urahman case is not of a political person or of a journalists per se as some are trying to present it so. That's just blackmailing and pressurizing tactics.
Second accountability institutions are limited to their capacity - so demands for hundred percent perfections are misplaced - there will always be errors and short-comings and it is personal opinions what one makes out of it. Out right unfair practices in the courtroom and bias of judges is unacceptable, however.

The criminal trials of politicians determine the winners and losers in our personality-cult politics. So, there is a political dimension, but that is besides the point. To see them through the narrow window of politics than through the eye of law is, I'll say immaturity, and, in the long and short term, harmful for the judicial system and nation. In the west, generally, when political personalities are tried for "Criminal" charges, political parties simply disengage and disassociate until one has clarified him/her in the courtroom. There is no other proper choice else to damage the health and moral of the nation. Our political system needs to be mature and bear the political cost for the sake of integrity of judicial system.
As for the long tales of judicial verdicts and surrounding controversies, history is written by politicians and journalists. I take that with a grain of salt. Only matters worth discussing is the actual verdicts and the witnesses, not the infinite webs woven by the politician and commentators.
That said there is much for reforms and redesign of institutions and courts. Courts have ill-served, especially the powerless and the poor and institutions are easily blackmailed/bribed by the rich and powerful. However the way forward is more trust on courts and legal reforms not the other way round.

 

[Wake up Pak]

NAB should arrest this mullah and put him with mir Shakeel in the same cell.

 

[Fairer]

But perhaps "across the board accountability" is another cliche - laden with politics and opinions, but less on the reality or concrete measures and facts.
First Shakil Urahman case is not of a political person or of a journalists per se as some are trying to present it so. That's just blackmailing and pressurizing tactics.
Second accountability institutions are limited to their capacity - so demands for hundred percent perfections are misplaced - there will always be errors and short-comings and it is personal opinions what one makes out of it. Out right unfair practices in the courtroom and bias of judges is unacceptable, however.

The criminal trials of politicians determine the winners and losers in our personality-cult politics. So, there is a political dimension, but that is besides the point. To see them through the narrow window of politics than through the eye of law is, I'll say immaturity, and, in the long and short term, harmful for the judicial system and nation. In the west, generally, when political personalities are tried for "Criminal" charges, political parties simply disengage and disassociate until one has clarified him/her in the courtroom. There is no other proper choice else to damage the health and moral of the nation. Our political system needs to be mature and bear the political cost for the sake of integrity of judicial system.
As for the long tales of judicial verdicts and surrounding controversies, history is written by politicians and journalists. I take that with a grain of salt. Only matters worth discussing is the actual verdicts and the witnesses, not the infinite webs woven by the politician and commentators.
That said there is much for reforms and redesign of institutions and courts. Courts have ill-served, especially the powerless and the poor and institutions are easily blackmailed/bribed by the rich and powerful. However the way forward is more trust on courts and legal reforms not the other way round.

Political commentary and opinions can not be silenced from the court verdicts unless again 'impartiality' is not observed and demonstrated. It will be dragged again and again by opinion maker's and the historians. If someone is a criminal now then you never know he/she will be a hero of tomorrow.
Whereas the question of 'accountability capacity is limited' ... is like a wolf without teeth. For what we see They have unlimited powers and allowed to put in custody a proposed accuser on initial stages of investigation but why only the critics of power houses.
No one demands a 100% upright decision a margin of error is acceptable. Have you seen in your profession if you do 99 good things and 1 bad everyone will remember the bad part.
In west you never see justice used as a political tool to whip your opponents. Did you ever saw govt is made and destroyed in the court rooms as frequently as here. So the impact of such practices takes time to heal.
For the case of Mir Shakil if he had done wrong then he should be punished however you gave him tremendous leeway by picking up your critic on initial stages of investigation. Foreseeable looks like he will also be out just like many others.
Cannot Agree more with your last sentence but trust on courts will be embedded only by as per your saying cliche 'Free, Fair and impartial justice system'

 

[Shazi ji]

مافیا کے دلوں گشتی کے نطفوں حرام پر پلے ہوۓ کنجروں اور بھڑ وون می ایک نئی آمد ایک حرام خور جو جس اندھے کو چند نظر نہیں آتا س خنزیر اندھے کی وجہ سے سے پاکستان می دو عید ہوتی ہیں ابّ یہ سیاست می اپنی ما چ چاہتا ہے حضرت لوط کی قوم کا ممیسا اور چوپا ابّ میر ذلیل ہنومان کا چوپا بننے کی اور را انڈین لوبی کا دلا بن کر اپنی کسی کتے والی کرانے کے مشن پر

پھر دلا ترین مافیا اور خان مافیا چ کے لئے بیٹھا ہے