Hakim Muhammad Said lived a selfless and work-filled life, showing how the Pakistan dream could be turned into reality. His intellectual endeavours regularly brought scholars and writers together from across the country to cement national bonds and spread awareness. The countrywide Hamdard health and education networks he built had made him a revered household name.

Naturally, therefore, the gruesome murder of this national icon was a body blow to the nation--which, of course, is why he was targeted. Who could have perpetrated the perfidy, was the question on every shocked mind that murky October of 1998.

The outburst of anguish had compelled premier Nawaz Sharif to appear on television and assure the nation that the killers had been caught. But he looked shaken and more uncertain than usual, mumbling as he read their names off a scrap of paper. They were said to be MQM activists. What this charge did to MQM's credentials nationwide should be self-evident. It also scuttled an MQM-PPP attempt to unseat the Liaquat Jatoi government, and paved the way for governor's rule in Sindh and a crackdown on terrorists to "restore the lights of Karachi" as Nawaz Sharif liked to put it.

But the cold-blooded politics of the murder, and the conspiracy theories that were (and will, perhaps, always be) spun around it, is not today's focus. The legal outcome of the case is. It is a sad comment indeed on the insensitivity (or pragmatism?) of the independent print-media (the controlled electronic-media being a write off) that the acquittal of all nine convicts last week by the Sindh High court has gone uncommented by the op-ed writers.

It was certainly not a non-event, considering Hakim Sahib's stature and that all nine had been sentenced to death by a special anti-terrorist court. Also because the guilty verdict was supposedly a millstone around their party's neck. These ultimate sentences have now been completely overturned, MQM has justifiably claimed vindication and called for Nawaz Sharif's scalp.

Aren't these bombshells? You wouldn't think so from the media non-reaction. Yes, there are wheels within wheels which have turned Karachi from Pakistan's intellectual and economic powerhouse to its Achilles' heel. But that should be reason enough for more media involvement, not less. But ostriches don't learn.

Anyway, while the acquittal was a second shock to the nation, those who had followed the shady investigation (including the custodial death of a co-accused) and the appeal proceedings in the two-member High Court bench had seen it coming. As is customary these days, the prosecution had relied on "confessional statements" of six accused persons recorded by sub divisional magistrate, Aram Bagh.

Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (1898) authorises magistrates to record such statements, but bars a police officer from doing so. This exclusion, and the other mandatory safeguards, gives these statements (often by witnesses) and confessions (by the accused) a quasi-judicial authority and, thus, added evidentiary value. Please consider the safeguards provided by section 164 to ensure that the statements and confessions do not result from police coercion:

• The accused has a right to be present when the statement is being made by a witness against him and to cross-examine him.

• Before recording the confession, the magistrate must explain to the accused that he is not obligated to confess and, if he does so, the confession may be used as evidence against him.

• As an added precaution, magistrates are charged with the responsibility of satisfying themselves by questioning the person brought before them by the police for making the confession that he is indeed acting freely and voluntarily.

• Additional safeguards flowing from judicial verdicts on the issue require the person making the confession to be taken out of police custody, allowed to sit in the room of the magistrate to ponder the consequences of his actions--having been assured by the magistrate that, no matter what statement he makes, he shall not be returned to police custody and, instead, will be held under judicial supervision.

• Only after fulfilling these rigorous requirements is the confession recorded, strictly as made, then read over and explained to the accused until he understands its import and any changes he requires are incorporated therein.

• Only thereafter, please note, is the confession signed by the person making it and the magistrate. The latter also has to inscribe a prescribed certificate underneath to the effect that all the mandatory ingredients were fulfilled, the confession was made voluntarily and read over to the person who admitted the same to be correct.

• When the case comes to trial, the magistrate has to appear in court to verify the confession and face cross-examination by the defence.

• Despite all these safeguards, superior courts have advised the trial courts not to rely exclusively on confessions and seek corroborative evidence--particularly when imposing the capital punishment.

Now, keeping this intimidating criterion in mind, please consider what happened during the appeal proceedings. The main target of the lawyers for the appellants was naturally the "confessional statements" as these were the main planks of the prosecution case.

Mr Mahmood Alam Rizvi, advocate, representing one of the appellants, reportedly referred to the confessional statements of his client Shakir and the other co-accused and "emphasised that one thing common in all such statements... was that their (the appellants') signatures were obtained first on blank-papers and the contents of the confession were written afterwards. This, he said, was evident from the manner in which the contents were written in a zigzag manner."

"How could the magistrate and the investigation officer commit such a big mistake?" an obviously surprised Justice Ataur Rehman is reported to have asked. "Perhaps it was the Almighty's way of helping the innocent," was Mr Rizvi's reply.

There indeed seems no earthly explanation for this brazen blunder which, as the final verdict suggests, must have knocked the bottom out of the prosecution case and led to the acquittal verdict. Unless the Sindh government now goes in appeal before the Supreme Court, justice will be deemed to have been done to the accused. They, and their party, can now avail the legal remedies, such as they are in our system, against their tormentors. Given good faith and tolerance by all sides, the political wounds should also heal.

But who will account to the nation for the murder of Hakim Sahib? As with the media, there is deathly silence in the corridors of power. No official comment, no indication that an appeal will be filed; not even the customary statement that a decision on this will be taken after the detailed judgement is released. It is as if nothing of import has happened. Or, as with the Supreme Court's judgement against two judges, the government seems to be pretending that it has no concern with whatever happened.

This obviously is not so. As in the case of the tainted judges, the ball is squarely in the government's court. Those who had "investigated" Hakim Sahib's case and made the arrests were then lionised by Nawaz Sharif and given special promotions. If an appeal is not filed against the acquittal verdict, then the least that must be done is to call these officials to account for their sins of omission and commission.

Doing so is essential not just because Hakim Sahib was a national treasure, Pakistan personified, and if his murder cannot be avenged how can the lesser mortals feel secure? How can they have faith in the rule of law, the state and the ideal behind it?

Accountability of the 'investigators' is vital also because 'getting away with murder' has become an all too common a reality. The embarrassment caused to the country when the convicted killers of the Iranian director of Khana-e-Farhang, Multan, were acquitted by the Supreme Court due to investigative incompetence is another case in point. While these are high-profile cases, shoddy investigation leads every day to countless cutthroats getting off scot-free.

This rot has to be stemmed. And we owe it to the revered memory of Hakim Sahib that a beginning is made with his case. There must be reinvestigation and the murderers brought to book. Otherwise, the wound will fester and, like the unexplained murder of Liaquat Ali Khan, poison the national body politic. The truth must out. But will it?

The author is a freelance columnist