Individual citizens do not bear the responsibility to plead a case to seek justice on behalf of the entire civil society, nor the burden to spend exorbitant money and time to run after the courts is an individual’s responsibility either. This is the rule of thumb in common laws.
However, the process of accountability among the rulers in Riyasat e Madinah held high moral standards where Omar RA, the second head of the state was questioned on his attires by a commoner. A Jewish businessman was handed over judgment in his favor rejecting Muslim businessman’s false connotation. Nepotism or undue favors were never part of governance in the Riyasat e Madinah.
Gary Hart, the front runner Presidential candidate had to drop out from the race on accusations of misconduct, Bill Clinton was indicted, and Arnold Schwarzenegger had to resign. These are examples of accountability in the modern statecraft.
The California court judgment of July-1997, the missing DNA of the subject, the deliberate concealing of facts through pending cases on foreign funding, the insanity reflected in declaring Germany and Japan as neighbors, false narrative of digging oil from water wells in KPK, discovery of biggest oil reserves from the port of Karachi in human history, and the consistent lies on all avenues of the state is colluding minds to question the mental status of the subject, let alone the transparency in the process of accountability is questioned.
The conduct of the state is in jeopardy and demands to justify the call for Riyasat e Madinah, or a modern state of the twenty-first century where rule of law has a role to play in a successful democracy.
Is there a difference between a banana republic and Riyasat e Madinah?
The learned need to respond.
