Share the post "Junaid Hafeez, Section 295-C and the Rule of Law: Reconsideration or Safe Passage?"
What the appeal must decide
The central issue is neither whether a social media campaign declares Hafeez innocent nor whether another campaign declares the trial verdict untouchable. It is whether the conviction survives an independent examination of the law and evidence. In a capital case, that examination cannot be replaced by a crowd’s certainty. Dawn explains that the death sentence also requires High Court confirmation through a capital punishment reference, a separate safeguard that places the prosecution’s evidence under further scrutiny. According to its September 22 account, both that process and Hafeez’s appeal remained pending.
This is where the familiar suggestion of “safe passage” becomes uncomfortable. A family may understandably want a loved one out of danger, and protection after a lawful outcome may be essential. But quietly sending an accused person abroad cannot substitute for deciding whether the state proved its case. It would leave the conviction, the evidence and the years of delay without a judicial answer. Pakistan’s courts should hear the appeal promptly, record their reasons openly and provide appropriate protection to everyone involved in the proceedings. That is an editorial position; it does not prejudge the appeal.
The human cost extends beyond a case number. Hafeez’s father and brother have lived with this prosecution since 2013. Reports about his prison conditions and isolation raise serious questions that deserve examination under Pakistan’s own rules. The killing of Rashid Rehman remains a stark reminder that a lawyer’s ability to defend an unpopular client is a test of whether any accused Pakistani can receive a fair trial.
