Erevna: Journal of Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1 65 Ideational Metafunctions in Legal Discourse: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of Panama Case Verdict Verda Ahmed BS Scholar, NUML, Islamabad Muhammad Yousaf NUML, Islamabad Azhar Habib NUML, Islamabad Keywords  SFL  Panama Case Judgement  Patterns of Language  Legal Discourse Abstract The study centers on the Systematic Functional Linguistics (SFL) Analysis of a legal document, namely, The Panama Case Judgement, officially released on the Pakistan Supreme Court website. As there was a lack of literature on the linguistic analysis of legal documents in Pakistan, this paper aimed to give a thorough analysis of the indictment of a former prime minister. The paper made use of the articulated judgement by the court and explored the patterns of language in relation to power in legal discourses. The paper explored that verbal category has used different modes of speech such as; commanding, stating or asking. It also showed that this process was used mostly by the Court itself. This highlighted the significance of the stance taken by the Court throughout the whole judgment, where no external factor made any effect on the outcome or the result. The paper highlighted how linguistic analyses of the legal document can represent the true ideology of the judgement to the reader. 1. Introduction The concept of language has a tremendous influence on all the parts of an individual’s life. The gravity of interacting through language and its manifestation at different levels of communication have a massive impact on day to day living. Moreover, language has multiple dimensions, for example, to express sentiments or comfort in grief. Through language, people can impart their point-of-views, composed in written expression, or