I don’t get this loooooooooooooong known thing. The guy hasn’t been convicted yet it is assumed that he is guilty. Why then are others imune from such assumptions. For example, the Sharifs have benefitted a great deal since they entered politics as has every other politician. Yet zardari is considered the face of corruption. Why then should the CJ’s son be imune from such assumptions? Remember his name has come up before.
Come on now. Malik Riaz’s complaint, whether true or false, is that he was blackmailed. He says that Arslan threatened him with unfavorable verdicts in cases before the SC but if he paid up, Arslan would make sure that the verdicts were favorable.
Where is the proof that he is the de facto ruler? Assumptions are all fine and dandy as long as they are about the people we don’t like. However, certain people are innocent until proven guilty.