Credibility, Proof or Fees?

Now, it is being said that it was all lawyers’ fault, we had a lot of evidences but these incompetent lawyers got us killed.

I am wondering from where the lawyers would bring evidences and convince the court that the properties purchased in London were through legitimate money? I can bet any money, that none of the lawyers will be told the real situation. Who would have risked sharing these billions of dollars of real estate details with these lawyers and let them in on the secrets of their family’s billions of dollars?

Probably the ruling family had stopped relying on the lawyers ever since their old lawyer Aittzaz Ahsan turned his guns towards them. In General Musharraf’s era when no one was willing to represent Nawaz Sharif family during trial, it was Aitzaz Ahsan who showed bravery and fought some of their cases. That was the reason when Aitzaz Ahsan went to London in 2007 and met Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in exile, he was given more protocol by the Sharif family than the Bibi, while the Bibi did not meet Aitzaz for a few days. Although the immediate cause of the honour of Aitzaz Ahsan was being the leader of the movement to restore Chief Justice. The Bibi was not happy with them, while the Sharifs saw their advantage in the movement that weakening of Musharraf and the return of a judge like Iftikhar Chaudhary could open the way for them. Two things indirectly benefited the Sharif family. Firstly, the NRO deal between Benzair Bhutto and General Musharraf which also opened the way for Sharif’s return and restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhary because from his court Nawaz Sharif’s life imprisonment sentence was dismissed and he was cleared of various other cases which were created by General Musharraf 9 years ago.

However, one day when I heard Saad Rafiq criticizing Aitzaz Ahsan in the Senate for advocating for thieves, robbers, land grabbers, mafia and LPG King, I thought he probably didn’t know that Aitzaz Ahsan has also been a lawyer for the Sharif family. Well, Aitzaz Ahsan, of course, as a lawyer those days, would have received some information, if not all, of the business of the Sharif family so that he could fight his case. Therefore, when Aitzaz Ahsan came out as a staunch opponent of the Sharif family, he was the one who caused the most damage. Aitzaz Ahsan was the one who started questioning why the Prime Minister only pays Rs. 5000 tax per annum despite being an extraordinary wealthy. So, this time you may have noticed that the House of Sharif family did not rely on lawyers, that they should have done. They should have prepared and submit the response to the court after consulting with the lawyers with confidence. Hence why, Sheikh Akram had to say that his behaviour in the court was in accordance to the instructions he was receiving from the client. He says, he was told to present the sealed envelope in the court and he did not open it. What he is saying is true because when you read the remarks made by Justice Khosa, it clearly tells you how the Qatari letter was presented in the court. He weighs in on this because when reading Justice Khosa’s note, it is clear how he was presented in the court of law. Justice Khosa writes that the letter was dramatically presented in court. The way the five judges and above all Justice Khosa had done the post-mortem of the Qatari letter, is a classic in its place. Khosa Sahib even wrote that whoever advised the Sharifs to submit this letter to the court, he must have been their enemy. Now the question arises if the Sharif family had relied on their lawyers and had asked them whether they should submit a Qatari letter and what will be the court’s reaction, the situation that followed the letter might have been different. Sharifs have closed all of their doors. This clearly shows that the lawyers were not asked for the advice rather they were simply given the instructions on what to do and what to say in the court. The result is in front of us. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to blame the lawyers at this time.

Do the lawyers have any morals that in such big cases they decide other things besides fees with their client? Before deciding the fees, do they consider that there is enough evidence for the case that they have to follow, that they will not have to worry about their client’s case being presented to the judge in court, and that he will not be taunted and laughed upon in the court? Having a lawyer is the right of every accused or human being and one should use all kinds of means to defend himself. However, it may also be included in the ethics that if your client is unable to provide you with all the evidence you need to win the case and you know that your client is really involved in the allegation, then he should be advised to confesses in court and the lawyer should try to get him the least punishment. In exchange for an honest confession in the court, he will get him the concessions from the court and judges worldwide do give this kind of concessions.

If someone brings me a news or scandals, how can I file that scandal without documentation? How could I say that it was all heard, tomorrow when I will be asked to give the evidence of the scandal? I have no proof. Will I be believed upon? If a journalist is unable to prove that he had the evidences, he would have to pay a lot of fines and penalties in addition to losing his credibility. Therefore, when a journalist is not exempt from filing a scandal without proper documentation and research, so a lawyer is also liable for a case in which there is no ordinary person but the Prime Minister of the country and his children are involved. They should only take the case when they are fully satisfied that they really have enough evidence to win the case.

Now it can be said that without lawyers, how could they fight their case even if they were lying and wrong? I think there are many instances where the accused and the defendant fought their case themselves. Sheikh Rasheed also presented his case as a plaintiff and presented it well and his arguments are mentioned in the notes of the judges. By the way, it is certain that the accused do not need lawyers when they decide to fight the case themselves and they are convinced of their innocence. When you find out that you are stuck in a narrow street, then you need dozens of lawyers to escape. They replace their lawyer team with a new one, but after the trial, they put all the blame on lawyers. I am sorry to say that these famous lawyers of Sharif family were only focussing on the heavy fees they were being paid. They must have made sure that the notes they are receiving are genuine, however if they had looked at the Panama scandal case with the same depth, they would not have been insulted today. They would not have to hear that we had piles of evidence but the tyrants have made us lose the case. In a major case like the Panama Scandal that is being watched by the entire world, only one of professional credibility, solid evidence and hefty fees could have been chosen. The army of our esteemed lawyer friends, probably chose a hefty fee, keeping professional credibility and solid evidence aside.

(Published in Monthly Tribute International on 01-05-2017)