What Precedent the Courts are Setting?

[Mini-Me]

The ATC courts were created to deliver quick and firm justice, all the “convicted” were punished with the highest punishment allowed by the law in Pakistan, their assets frozen and fortified in the name of state. They had the right to appeal and if the appeal is rejected the verdict remain the same and executable.

So now if some one is convicted he will be punished and his assets fortified, so he appeals tells the court that I will appeal for my conviction latter on, but don’t let my assets to be fortified and the court agrees...

So what it means ...the assets are more important than his conviction or he is not convicted at all
Tell me if it was you and me and we had this luxury...

[kmailik]

Believe it or not the ATC's were actually improved by this present government. Under Nawaz's original laws (fashioned relly to punish the MQM), people would be tried by the ATC's in a two-week trial, and then have only one right of appeal , to a special ATC appellate court - NO APPEAL TO A PROVINIAL HIGH COURT, THE SUPREM COURT OR TO THE PRESIDENT.

Musharraf has actually got rid of the ATC appellate courts, lenghthened the time for cases to be tried, and allowed three appeals after convistion - High Court, Supreme Court and the President (in effect the CE).

The higher courts are stuck between the corrupt culture of the nation, and trying to be fair judges - The great Saajad Ali Shah was a strict legalist judge, and really stuck to the law. BUT Saiduzzaman Siddiqui was higly corrupt - he took partin the conspiracy to remove Saajad, and then refused to take the PCO in January and resigned - what a hypocrite! - he took the PCO under Zia in 1981??

The CE needs to push hard (after the Nawaz trial) for true judicial reform i.e by selecting judges on merit only, and by abolishing all the British-era laws and regulations...