When Justice Becomes a Punishment: Sardar Mushtaq Gill Condemns False Accusations, Delayed Justice, and the Misuse of Law

LEAD Ministries Founder Calls for Global Justice Reform and Firm Time Limits, Warning That Criminal Proceedings Must Not Be Misused as a Tool to Harm Others Through False Accusations

LAHORE — Sardar Mushtaq Gill, Founder of LEAD Ministries, has strongly condemned the misuse of criminal justice systems through false accusations, fabricated FIRs, prolonged litigation, and the deliberate or unjustified delay in the administration of justice.

Gill warned that when an innocent person is falsely accused and then forced to spend years navigating an unresolved criminal case, the justice system itself can become a source of punishment rather than protection.

He stressed that this is not merely a problem affecting one country. False accusations, misuse of criminal laws, prolonged proceedings, and delayed justice are global concerns that can affect ordinary citizens, genuine victims, religious minorities, and other vulnerable communities.

“Justice is not justice when an innocent person is forced to spend years defending himself against a false accusation,” Gill said. “A justice system must protect the innocent, hold the guilty accountable, and deliver justice within a reasonable and clearly defined period. An ordinary criminal case should, as a general rule, be concluded within one year, while a genuinely complex case may require up to a maximum of two years. Beyond that period, any further delay should be treated as exceptional and require clear judicial justification and effective oversight.”

Gill emphasized that the objective is not to rush trials or compromise due process, but to prevent the administration of justice from becoming an endless process.

“We are not calling for rushed justice. We are calling for timely justice. A fair trial must remain fair, but fairness must never become an excuse for endless delay.”

False Accusations: When the Law Becomes a Weapon

A criminal accusation can alter a person’s life long before a court determines whether the allegation is true.

A false FIR or malicious complaint can damage a person’s reputation, employment, business, family relationships, and social standing. In some circumstances, the accused may face arrest, detention, threats, financial hardship, or restrictions on movement while the case is still being investigated.

In the age of social media, the consequences can be even more severe. An accusation can reach thousands or even millions of people within hours, while an acquittal years later may receive little or no comparable attention.

The accusation becomes headline news; the truth may become a footnote

Gill warned that the presumption of innocence must never become an empty legal phrase.

“An accusation is not proof of guilt, and an FIR is not a conviction,” he said. “The presumption of innocence must remain a fundamental principle of every civilized justice system.”

Where a criminal complaint is deliberately fabricated or maliciously brought, Gill believes that appropriate legal accountability should follow once the falsity or malicious nature of the allegation has been established through due process.

The purpose, he said, is not to prevent genuine victims from approaching the authorities, but to prevent the justice system from being exploited as an instrument of revenge, intimidation, financial pressure, political influence, or persecution.

A complaint that cannot ultimately be proved is not automatically a false complaint. There is an essential distinction between an allegation that remains unsubstantiated and one that is deliberately fabricated or maliciously made with the intention of causing harm. That distinction must be determined through proper investigation and due process.

When the Process Itself Becomes the Punishment

The most damaging situation occurs when false accusations are combined with years of judicial delay.

A person may first be falsely implicated in a criminal case. Instead of receiving a prompt and impartial determination, the accused may then spend years attending hearings, seeking bail, responding to applications, producing documents, and waiting for witnesses.

One hearing becomes another.

One year becomes several.

Eventually, the legal process itself begins to consume the person’s life.

For an innocent person, the punishment may begin long before any conviction.

Gill described this as one of the most serious dangers facing modern justice systems.

“When a person is forced to spend years proving his innocence, the process itself becomes a form of punishment,” Gill said. “A justice system must determine the truth within a reasonable time. It must not allow uncertainty to become a permanent condition of a person's life.”

Speaking from Experience: A Call to Raise Our Voices Against Delayed Justice

Gill says his concerns about delayed justice are not merely theoretical or academic. They arise from experience and from witnessing the serious harm that can result when justice and the administration of justice are delayed.

He believes that those who have experienced the consequences of prolonged proceedings, unjustified delays, or the misuse of legal processes have a particular responsibility to speak out—not only for themselves, but for others who may face similar injustice.

“We speak about delayed justice because we have experienced the harm that delay can cause,” Gill said. “When justice is delayed, the damage is not limited to a court file. It affects people’s freedom, dignity, families, livelihoods, reputation, security, and hope.”

Gill called upon human-rights defenders, civil-society organizations, lawyers, community leaders, journalists, social activists, and ordinary citizens around the world to raise their voices against deliberate or unjustified delays in the administration of justice.

He emphasized that people should not remain silent when they see others suffering because a legal matter has been unnecessarily prolonged.

“We should all feel the pain of those who are victims of delayed justice,” Gill said. “When one person is denied timely justice, the issue should concern all of us. We must raise our voices wherever justice is deliberately delayed, manipulated, obstructed, or denied, because today it may happen to another person, and tomorrow it may happen to us.”

From an international human-rights perspective, Gill argues that timely justice should be recognized as an essential component of human dignity, equality before the law, and the rule of law. The responsibility to oppose unjustified delay therefore extends beyond individual cases and national borders.

One Year for Ordinary Cases — Two Years for Complex Cases

Gill has called for serious consideration of enforceable judicial timelines.

Under the reform principle he advocates, an ordinary criminal case should normally be concluded within one year.

Where a case is genuinely complex because of extensive evidence, numerous witnesses, multiple accused persons, technical investigations, or other exceptional circumstances, proceedings could be allowed up to a maximum of two years.

Beyond that period, further delay should not become automatic.

Any extension should require a clear explanation, recorded judicial reasons, and appropriate oversight.

“Two years should not become an open-ended permission to delay,” Gill said. “If a case genuinely requires more time, there must be exceptional and demonstrable reasons. Endless proceedings cannot be allowed to become the normal administration of justice.”

Gill emphasized that this proposal is not intended to compromise the right to a fair trial. Rather, it seeks to establish a balance between due process and timely justice.

Delayed Justice Must Be Addressed Across the Entire Justice System

Gill emphasized that delayed justice is not an issue that should be addressed only in cases involving blasphemy laws or other particularly sensitive allegations. The principle of timely justice must apply to every criminal offence, including murder, sexual assault, drug offences, fraud, kidnapping, assault, and other serious crimes.

The same principle should also extend, where legally appropriate, to civil matters, protection-related proceedings, administrative matters, and cases pending before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, prosecution departments, police authorities, or administrative institutions.

No person should be left for years in a state of legal uncertainty simply because a matter has not been resolved by the relevant authority.

Delayed justice can seriously harm both accused persons and genuine victims. For an accused person, prolonged proceedings can mean years of uncertainty, repeated appearances before courts, financial hardship, damage to reputation, loss of employment or business opportunities, restrictions on liberty, and continuing social stigma.

For a genuine victim, delay can mean years without accountability, compensation, protection, closure, or effective relief. Witnesses may become unavailable, memories may fade, documents may be lost, and evidence may become increasingly difficult to obtain.

A justice system that takes too long can therefore fail both sides of a case.

Modern Evidence Must Be Preserved, Examined, and Fairly Disclosed

Gill emphasized that modern justice systems must make full and proper use of contemporary forms of evidence.

In an age of CCTV cameras, mobile phones, digital communications, electronic records, photographs, videos, location data, forensic material, and other forms of electronic evidence, investigations should not depend solely on oral allegations or traditional forms of evidence when objective evidence is available.

“Modern technology can help establish the truth much more quickly,” Gill said. “Where CCTV footage, video recordings, mobile-phone records, electronic communications, photographs, digital records, or other lawful electronic evidence exists, investigators must have a duty to identify, preserve, examine, and place relevant evidence before the competent court or authority. Evidence should not be selectively withheld simply because it may assist the accused.”

The principle of disclosure should operate fairly and transparently. Relevant evidence should be preserved, examined, and disclosed to the parties or placed before the competent authority in accordance with law, subject to legitimate privacy, witness-protection, confidentiality, and evidentiary requirements.

Where CCTV footage or other electronic evidence may materially demonstrate that an alleged incident did not occur as claimed, establish the whereabouts of an accused person, contradict an allegation, or otherwise indicate that a case may have been fabricated or falsely reported, such evidence should be promptly preserved, examined, and disclosed in accordance with applicable law.

Gill warned that failure to disclose or properly investigate evidence that may exonerate an accused person can contribute to prolonged and unjust proceedings.

“The purpose of an investigation is not to secure a conviction at any cost,” Gill said. “The purpose of an investigation is to establish the truth. If evidence helps prove the allegation, it must be examined. If evidence helps establish the innocence of the accused, it must also be examined and disclosed in accordance with law. Justice cannot be served by presenting only the evidence that supports one side while ignoring or concealing evidence that may establish the truth.”

He further emphasized that modern technology should be used from the earliest stage of an investigation. Police and prosecution authorities should have effective procedures for identifying, preserving, authenticating, examining, and presenting digital and electronic evidence so that genuinely false or fabricated cases can be identified at the earliest possible stage.

A criminal case should not be allowed to continue for years when objective evidence capable of resolving a central factual dispute was available from the beginning but was never properly examined.

Criminal Law Must Never Become a Weapon for Personal Revenge or Gain

Gill further stressed that safeguards against the misuse of criminal law must apply to every category of criminal allegation, regardless of how serious the alleged offence may be.

Murder, drug offences, sexual-assault allegations, blasphemy allegations, and other serious crimes must always be investigated thoroughly and treated with the seriousness they deserve. However, the seriousness of an allegation must never be used as an excuse to abandon due process, ignore exculpatory evidence, or allow an innocent person to be deliberately trapped in a criminal case.

“The more serious the allegation, the greater the responsibility of the justice system to establish the truth,” Gill said. “The law must never be permitted to become a weapon for personal revenge, financial gain, political pressure, family disputes, or other ulterior motives. No one should be able to destroy another person's life simply by manufacturing a criminal allegation.”

A person falsely accused of murder may spend years defending himself against an allegation that was never true. Someone falsely implicated in a drug case may lose employment, reputation, and freedom while waiting for the courts to determine the facts. A false sexual-assault allegation can permanently damage a person’s reputation, career, protection and family life even before the evidence has been properly examined.

At the same time, Gill emphasized that genuine victims of murder, sexual violence, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes must receive immediate protection and effective access to justice.

The answer is not weaker criminal laws. The answer is stronger safeguards, professional investigations, reliable evidence, and equal due process.

The justice system must be capable of distinguishing between a genuine criminal complaint and an allegation deliberately manufactured to harm another person.

Where a case is proven to have been deliberately fabricated or maliciously pursued, the person responsible should face appropriate legal consequences under the law. Such proceedings should themselves be handled promptly and fairly.

“If a person deliberately makes a false criminal accusation, knowing that it is false and intending to cause harm to another person, that conduct should be addressed through the law,” Gill said. “Once the falsity and malicious nature of an accusation have been established through due process, the false accuser should be prosecuted and dealt with in a timely manner. Accountability must not exist only for the person who is accused; it must also apply to those who deliberately misuse the justice system.”

Gill emphasized that accountability for false accusations must never discourage genuine victims from reporting crimes. A complaint that cannot ultimately be proved is not automatically a false complaint. The distinction between an unproven allegation and a deliberately fabricated or malicious accusation must be determined through proper investigation and due process.

A false accuser should not benefit from the very delays that caused harm to the falsely accused.

Blasphemy Allegations and the Suffering of Religious Minorities

LEAD Ministries Urges a Fair, Impartial, and Speedy Trial and Protection for Amir Masih, His Family, and the Christian Community Amid Blasphemy Allegations

LEAD Ministries has reported the arrest of Amir Masih, a Christian resident of Dhala Sharif, near Nowshera Virkan in District Gujranwala, following allegations concerning a video reportedly shared on social media.

Amir Masih, son of Emmanuel Masih, was arrested on 11 August 2026, which coincided with Pakistan’s National Minority Day. According to a police document, FIR No. 1189/26 was registered at Police Station Nowshera Virkan under Sections 295-A, 295-C, and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

The complaint was submitted by Sajjad Mustafa and supported by Rizwan Ali and Muhammad Ramzan. According to the complaint, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on 10 August 2026, they were present at Arshad PCO in Dera Chowk when Amir Masih arrived and allegedly made remarks that they considered offensive to their religious beliefs.

The First Information Report also refers to a video allegedly posted or shared through social media. According to the police complaint, the video contained Christian and Islamic religious imagery accompanied by Punjabi dialogue that the complainants interpreted as making a religious comparison.

These matters remain allegations. The registration of an FIR does not establish guilt, and the complete circumstances, context, and evidentiary significance of the alleged video and statements must be determined through lawful investigation and judicial proceedings.

Following the allegations, tensions reportedly increased in Dhala Sharif. A crowd reportedly gathered, and threats were allegedly made against Amir Masih’s residence, raising serious concerns about possible violence and property damage.

As a precautionary measure, several Christian families reportedly left their homes and sought safety elsewhere. Amir Masih’s family was also reportedly subjected to violence and forced to move to a safer location to protect their lives and prevent the situation from escalating further, while Amir Masih remained in police custody.

LEAD Ministries expresses grave concern about the safety and well-being of Amir Masih, his family, and the wider Christian community in Dhala Sharif. Regardless of the allegations, no individual or community should be subjected to mob violence, threats, intimidation, or collective punishment.

LEAD Ministries therefore urges the relevant authorities to ensure Amir Masih’s right to a fair, impartial, and speedy trial in accordance with the law and established principles of due process.

We further call upon the authorities to provide immediate and effective protection to Amir Masih’s family and other vulnerable members of the Christian community.

Law-enforcement authorities should take all necessary measures to prevent further violence, threats, harassment, or destruction of property. Any allegations of violence or intimidation against Amir Masih’s family or members of the Christian community should be promptly and impartially investigated, and those responsible should be held accountable in accordance with the law.

LEAD Ministries also calls for restraint from all sides and urges community leaders and local authorities to work together to prevent further escalation of tensions. The safety of every individual, regardless of religious belief, must be protected.

At this critical moment, the rule of law, due process, protection of human life, and the constitutional rights of religious minorities must remain paramount. Allegations must be addressed through lawful judicial procedures rather than through public pressure, threats, or mob action.

LEAD Ministries stands in solidarity with Amir Masih, his family, and the Christian community of Dhala Sharif and calls upon the authorities to ensure justice, peace, protection, and equal treatment under the law.

We respectfully urge all relevant institutions to act swiftly and responsibly to protect lives, prevent further violence, and ensure that Amir Masih receives a fair, impartial, and speedy trial.

Due Process as a Shield for Religious Minorities

Gill also highlighted the particular vulnerability of religious minorities, especially in cases involving highly sensitive blasphemy allegations.

Christians and other religious minorities in different parts of the world have faced discrimination, violence, intimidation, and persecution. Where allegations involving religion enter an already tense social environment, the consequences can extend far beyond the courtroom.

A religious accusation can trigger public hostility, threats, displacement, and violence even before a court has determined whether the allegation is true.

The experiences of Pakistani Christians such as Pastor Zafar Bhatti and Asia Bibi demonstrate the devastating human cost that prolonged blasphemy proceedings can have.

Pastor Zafar Bhatti, a Christian pastor, was arrested after being accused of sending blasphemous text messages, allegations he denied. His case continued for years, and he remained imprisoned through a lengthy sequence of legal proceedings before the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court overturned his conviction and acquitted him in October 2025. He was released from prison but died of a cardiac arrest only days later, after spending approximately 13 years behind bars.

His experience raises a profound question about delayed justice:

What does an acquittal mean when a person has already lost more than a decade of freedom?

Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, was arrested following a blasphemy allegation in 2009. She was convicted and sentenced to death and spent years under the threat of execution before Pakistan’s Supreme Court ultimately acquitted her.

Although the final judgment brought legal relief, it came after years of imprisonment, uncertainty, and fear for her life.

These cases demonstrate why the protection of due process is not merely a technical legal principle.

For vulnerable religious minorities, due process can be a shield against persecution.

The issue is not whether genuine allegations should be investigated. They should.

The issue is whether a person should remain imprisoned, threatened, or socially condemned for years while waiting for the justice system to establish the truth.

A False Accusation Can Become a Life Sentence of Uncertainty

The impact of a false or unproven accusation does not necessarily end when a person is released or acquitted.

A person may lose employment, education, property, business opportunities, and social relationships.

A family may be forced to relocate.

Children may grow up without a parent.

A person’s health may deteriorate under prolonged stress.

Even after acquittal, the stigma of the original allegation can remain.

An acquittal can restore legal freedom, but it cannot always restore lost years.

This is why Gill argues that the administration of justice must be judged not only by the final verdict, but also by the time taken to reach that verdict and the human consequences of the delay.

Justice for Victims, Wherever They May Be

Gill emphasized that the call for justice must extend to victims wherever they may reside in the world.

Human dignity and the right to fair and timely justice should not depend on a person's country, nationality, religion, ethnicity, social status, or place of residence.

“A victim is a victim, wherever he or she may live,” Gill said. “Justice must not have geographical boundaries. Whether a person is in Pakistan, Asia, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America, Latin America, or anywhere else in the world, every victim deserves protection, every innocent person deserves due process, and every genuine complaint deserves a fair and timely investigation.”

Gill called for stronger international cooperation and human-rights mechanisms to ensure that victims of false accusations, wrongful prosecution, persecution, and other abuses are not left without meaningful remedies simply because they live outside the jurisdiction where the injustice occurred.

“Justice cannot be reserved for those who have power, wealth, or influence,” Gill said. “It must reach the vulnerable, the persecuted, and the forgotten, wherever they are in the world.”

He stressed that the principle must be universal:

• The innocent must be protected.
•  Victims must be heard.
• Genuine complaints must be investigated.
• Those who deliberately misuse the law must be held accountable.

No victim should be too far away to be heard, and no innocent person should be beyond the reach of justice.

Equal Justice Must Mean Equal Protection

Gill called for justice systems around the world to apply the same standards to every citizen, regardless of religion, ethnicity, nationality, social status, wealth, or political influence.

“The law must not have one standard for the powerful and another for the vulnerable,” Gill said. “Every person is entitled to equal protection under the law. A Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, a person of another faith, or a person with no religious affiliation must receive the same protection and the same due process.”

He emphasized that genuine victims must be encouraged to report crimes, while malicious and deliberately false accusations must be addressed through lawful accountability.

A genuine victim must be heard. An innocent accused person must be protected. A person who deliberately abuses the justice system must be held accountable.

Accountability Must Extend to Officials

Gill also called for greater accountability for police officers, investigators, prosecutors, and other officials who knowingly abuse legal authority.

Where officials deliberately fabricate evidence, facilitate false cases, suppress or improperly withhold relevant evidence, manipulate investigations, ignore readily available CCTV or electronic evidence, or unnecessarily obstruct proceedings, they should be subject to appropriate independent investigation and, where misconduct is established, disciplinary or legal consequences.

Particular attention should be given to evidence that may assist the accused. Where investigators possess relevant evidence that could materially affect the truth of an allegation, including CCTV footage, electronic records, digital communications, photographs, or other objective material, such evidence should not be deliberately concealed or ignored simply because it may weaken the prosecution’s case.

The integrity of a criminal investigation requires investigators to follow the evidence wherever it leads. An investigation should not be treated as a process for building a case against a person at all costs; it should be a process for determining what actually happened.

Gill called for independent mechanisms through which complaints about deliberate suppression, manipulation, destruction, or non-disclosure of relevant evidence can be investigated.

“No institution should be above the law,” Gill said. “Judicial independence and institutional accountability are not opposites. Independence protects the administration of justice from improper interference; accountability protects society from abuse.”

Judicial Independence Must Not Mean Endless Delay

Gill stressed that judicial independence is essential to the rule of law. However, he argued that independence should not be confused with freedom from accountability for administrative failure or unjustified delay.

Courts must have the freedom to make decisions according to law and evidence, but the administration of cases should be governed by effective case management and reasonable timelines.

Repeated adjournments without sufficient justification should not become routine.

Cases should move forward.

Witnesses should be heard.

Evidence should be examined.

And judgments should be delivered within a reasonable period.

Justice Must Apply to Every Case

Gill emphasized that the principle of timely justice should never be selectively applied according to the nature of the allegation, the identity of the accused, or the social or political sensitivity of a case.

Whether a matter concerns blasphemy, murder, sexual assault, drug offences, fraud, violence, property, family protection, administrative action, or another legal dispute, every person affected by the justice system deserves a fair and timely determination.

The same principle must apply whether the matter is before a criminal court, civil court, quasi-judicial body, prosecution authority, police department, or administrative institution.

No system should permit a case to remain unresolved indefinitely simply because responsibility is divided among multiple institutions.

Where a matter is transferred from one authority to another, the transfer should not become a mechanism for avoiding responsibility or resetting the clock. Effective case management should ensure that responsibility remains clear and that unnecessary institutional delays are identified and addressed.

Gill argued that modern justice reform must therefore look beyond the courtroom itself.

Justice can be delayed at the investigation stage, during prosecution, through repeated adjournments, because of administrative inaction, through unnecessary transfers between institutions, or because relevant evidence was not collected or disclosed at the beginning.

Every stage matters.

Justice must be timely from the first complaint to the final determination.

A Global Call for Reform

Gill emphasized that the crisis is not limited to Pakistan.

False accusations, misuse of criminal procedures, prolonged trials, and delayed justice can affect people in countries across the world. The consequences become particularly serious where vulnerable religious, ethnic, or social minorities already face discrimination or persecution.

Gill called upon governments, legislatures, courts, police authorities, prosecution departments, administrative institutions, and human-rights organizations to strengthen safeguards against the misuse of criminal law and establish effective mechanisms for timely justice.

Among the reforms he advocates are:

• A clear one-year target for ordinary criminal cases.
• A maximum two-year framework for genuinely complex criminal cases, subject to exceptional judicial justification.
• Strict oversight of proceedings that exceed established time limits.
• Timely review of cases involving prolonged detention, restrictions on liberty, or other serious consequences for individuals seeking protection.
• Effective legal consequences for deliberately false and malicious accusations once established through due process.
• Timely prosecution of persons proven to have deliberately fabricated or maliciously pursued criminal allegations.
• Independent and professional criminal investigations.
• Mandatory preservation and proper examination of relevant CCTV, video, electronic, digital, forensic, and other objective evidence.
• Fair disclosure of relevant evidence, including evidence that may assist the accused, subject to applicable law and legitimate protections.
• Effective mechanisms for challenging the improper withholding, destruction, or suppression of relevant evidence.
• Accountability for officials who abuse legal authority or deliberately obstruct the discovery of truth.
• Greater use of technology to reduce administrative and judicial delays.
• Effective protection for witnesses, victims, accused persons, and vulnerable communities.
• Meaningful remedies for people subjected to wrongful prosecution or abuse of legal process.
• Equal protection for religious and other minorities.
• Strong safeguards against the use of criminal law for personal revenge, financial gain, political pressure, family disputes, or persecution.
• International cooperation to ensure that victims, wherever they reside, have meaningful access to justice and appropriate remedies.

Gill stressed that timely justice does not mean automatic acquittal, automatic conviction, or reduced protection for victims. It means that every case should move efficiently toward a lawful determination based on evidence, due process, and impartial judicial oversight.

The goal is not simply to make proceedings faster. The goal is to make the justice system more accurate, transparent, accountable, and humane.

The True Measure of Justice

Gill concluded that the strength of a justice system should not be measured simply by the number of laws it has or the number of cases it registers.

It should be measured by whether the innocent are protected, genuine victims receive timely justice, the guilty are held accountable, and no person is deliberately trapped in an endless legal process.

“A false accusation should never become a weapon of persecution. An FIR should never become an instrument of revenge. A criminal case should never become punishment before conviction. And justice should never take so long that a person's life is destroyed before the court reaches its decision.”

He called for a new culture of justice—one in which the law is not feared as a weapon but trusted as a shield.

“The purpose of justice is not merely to punish,” Gill said. “It is to establish truth, protect the innocent, provide remedies to victims, and preserve human dignity. When the machinery of justice is deliberately slowed, manipulated, or abused, society loses confidence not only in the courts, but in the rule of law itself.”

Justice Must Never Become a Punishment

For Gill, the principle is ultimately simple:

• The guilty must be held accountable.
• The innocent must be protected.
• The victim must receive justice.
• Justice must be delivered within a reasonable time.

Because when a false accusation can destroy a life and a legal case can consume years of that same life, the question is no longer simply whether justice exists.

The question is whether justice is being delivered in time to matter.

And in the words of Sardar Mushtaq Gill:

“Justice must never become a punishment. The law must be a shield for the innocent, a remedy for the victim, and a means of accountability for the guilty—not a weapon for those who seek revenge, personal gain, or persecution.”

Sardar Mushtaq Gill, Founder of LEAD Ministries, urges human-rights institutions, United Nations bodies, social activists, and human-rights defenders around the world to raise their voices against deliberate or unjustified delays in the administration of justice.

He calls upon the international community to stand firmly for the right to a fair, impartial, and speedy trial and to speak out against delaying tactics that undermine due process and the rule of law.

He further urges human-rights institutions and advocates in every country to remain vigilant and take meaningful action whenever individuals are denied timely justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable religious minorities and marginalized communities.

Gill emphasizes that justice must never be selective, delayed, or manipulated. It must apply equally to the accused, the victim, the complainant, and every institution involved in the administration of justice.

The law must protect the innocent, provide remedies to victims, establish the truth, and hold accountable those who deliberately abuse legal processes.

Justice must never become a punishment.