by: Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

Since Pakistan’s establishment in 1947, the office of the Prime Minister has been a focal point of judicial scrutiny. The judiciary has frequently intervened, resulting in the conviction and disqualification of several Prime Ministers—developments that have not only shaped their political destinies but also left an indelible mark on the nation’s democratic fabric.

The founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s leadership ended with his overthrow in a military coup by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977. Subsequently, Bhutto was arrested and trial for the murder of Nawab Mohammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri. The trial, widely criticized for its political undertones, culminated in his conviction and execution on April 4, 1979, a decision that remains one of the most contentious in Pakistan’s judicial history.

MohatramaBenazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s first female Prime Minister, faced judicial scrutiny during her tenure and beyond. Although her governments were dismissed twice on charges of corruption and mismanagement, it was during her years in opposition that the judiciary convicted her. In 1999, an accountability court convicted her in absentia on corruption charges, sentencing her to five years in prison and barring her from holding public office. However, this verdict was later overturned in 2001 due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws.

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, another prominent figure, served as Prime Minister during three non-consecutive terms (1990–1993, 1997–1999, and 2013–2017). His political career was marred by multiple convictions. During his second term as Prime Minister, a military coup led to his ousting in October 12, 1999. He was later convicted by an anti-terrorism court for hijacking and terrorism, charges related to his attempt to deny landing rights to a plane carrying General Pervez Musharraf. This resulted in a life sentence, which was commuted following a deal leading to his exile. Sharif’s third tenure ended in 2017 when the Supreme Court disqualified him from office. This disqualification stemmed from corruption charges uncovered in the Panama Papers, leading to a verdict on July 28, 2017. Subsequently, an accountability court sentenced him to 10 years in prison in the Avenfield reference case.

Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, who served as Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012, was disqualified by the Supreme Court on June 19, 2012. The disqualification resulted from his refusal to write a letter to Swiss authorities to reopen corruption cases against then-President Asif Ali Zardari. The court held Gilani in contempt, ending his tenure and setting a precedent for judicial oversight of executive compliance.

Raja Pervez Ashraf, Gilani’s successor, also faced legal challenges. Though he completed his term, he was implicated in the Rental Power Projects corruption case. While investigations and trials continue, his name remains associated with allegations of financial irregularities during his tenure as Prime Minister.

Imran Khan, the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), served as Prime Minister from 2018 to 2022 and became yet another victim of Pakistan’s political-judicial entanglements. In 2023, he was convicted in the Toshakhana case, accused of concealing details of state gifts and selling them unlawfully. This conviction resulted in a three-year prison sentence and his disqualification from elections. Although the conviction was later suspended, Khan continues to face numerous legal challenges.

On January 17, 2025, the judiciary convicted former Prime Minister Imran Khan on charges of financial misconduct and abuse of power. This conviction, announced by a special accountability court, involved allegations of misusing public funds for personal gains during their tenure. The court sentenced the individual to 14 years in prison, along with a hefty fine and disqualification from holding public office. The verdict was seen as part of the judiciary’s ongoing efforts to ensure accountability among the country’s political elite, but it also sparked debates about the impartiality of the decision.

The overarching narrative of these convictions reveals a pattern in which judicial actions are often closely tied to political conflicts. While some leaders faced genuine charges of corruption or misconduct, others were seemingly targeted through politically motivated cases. The recurring legal battles of the country’s leaders reflect the fragile state of governance and accountability in Pakistan, raising questions about the impartiality of judicial processes and the overarching influence of political agendas.

The Quran and Hadith emphasize the principles of justice and impartiality in governance. Surah An-Nisa (4:135) commands believers to stand firm in justice, even against themselves or their kin. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) highlighted the perils of selective accountability, stating: “The people before you were destroyed because they inflicted legal punishments on the poor and forgave the rich” (Sahih Bukhari). These teachings underscore the need for equitable and unbiased justice, a standard against which judicial actions must be measured.

While the judiciary’s role in holding Prime Ministers accountable is vital for ensuring the rule of law, it has often been criticized for overreach and selective application of justice. Allegations of judicial activism, have at times undermined public confidence in its impartiality. Ensuring that judicial actions align with Quranic principles of justice and transparency is essential for strengthening democracy and fostering trust in state institutions.

Can Tariffs Push Back China?

By: Qamar Bashir

Macomb, Detroit, Michigan

It was an exhilarating experience to watch the live telecast of Scott Bessent’s over four-hour confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary of the most powerful nation on Earth. This live broadcast reflected the highest standards of democratic values, making the public a part of vital decision-making, showcasing the performance of their elected representatives, and ensuring their accountability. This hearing also provided a rare opportunity for a writer like me to gain insight into the minds of U.S. decision-makers—how they think, deliberate on critical issues affecting both the United States and the world, strategize, and implement far-reaching, fate-changing decisions.

During the four-hour hearing, the members of the committee grilled Trump’s nominee on multiple issues confronting the U.S. and the world, including tariff policy, macroeconomic management, ensuring the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s principal reserve currency, reducing inflation, creating jobs, fostering innovation, controlling the energy supply chain and trade routes, establishing a foolproof cybersecurity apparatus, securing and managing rare mineral resources, and maintaining military dominance.

Interestingly, China emerged as the primary focus of the discussion, consuming most of the hearing. No other country or world leader was deemed worthy of significant attention, reflecting the U.S. policymakers’ intense focus on China and its status as the foremost rival to American global influence across nearly all aspects of power dynamics and world dominance. Committee members repeatedly referred to China as “Communist China,” labeling it the nation’s biggest adversary and singling it out as the primary geopolitical and economic threat to the United States.

The senators from both parties expressed deep concerns over China’s alleged unfair trade practices, strategic global investments, and economic maneuvers aimed at undermining U.S. global leadership. The hearing systematically examined specific threats posed by China and explored counter-strategies to contain and counteract its growing influence.

The senators from both sides of the aisle used their oratory skills to elaborate on and condemn China’s alleged unfair trade practices, including currency manipulation, state subsidies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfers, which they argued create an uneven playing field for American businesses. They accused China of weaponizing trade partnerships and using economic coercion to pressure countries into political and military alignment by leveraging its massive trade network.

China’s growing influence in Latin America and Africa was highlighted as a significant concern, with senators observing that Chinese investments in energy, mining, and digital infrastructure in developing regions provide Beijing with long-term leverage over critical resources and political alliances. To counter China’s expanding geopolitical reach, senators proposed strengthening U.S. alliances in Asia and Latin America by deepening strategic partnerships with countries such as India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Latin American allies.

Senators emphasized that the massive trade deficit with China, which has surpassed $400 billion annually, has severely impacted American manufacturing, agriculture, and industrial sectors, leading to job losses and economic vulnerabilities.

Senator Bill Cassidy highlighted that China continues to flood global markets with artificially cheap goods, particularly in steel, semiconductors, and solar panels, driving American competitors out of business. Senator John Cornyn warned that China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) strengthens its economic dominance by creating debt dependencies in developing nations, enabling Beijing to export its overcapacity while undermining U.S. trade influence. Senator Todd Young proposed using tariffs to pressure China into fulfilling its commitment to purchase $200 billion in additional U.S. agricultural products, which it has yet to fully meet.

Scott Bessent and Republican senators advocated for tariffs as the primary tool to correct trade imbalances and protect domestic industries from China’s state-backed economic aggression. Bessent outlined a tariff strategy that includes imposing selective tariffs on industries where China has gained an unfair advantage through government subsidies and forced technology transfers, using tariff revenues to fund American infrastructure and industrial revitalization, and leveraging tariffs as a negotiation tool to compel China to adhere to fair trade agreements and prevent further economic distortions.

The Committee members and Scott Bessent were unanimous in viewing tariffs as the primary weapon in the economic battle against China. However, they differed widely on how this weapon should be deployed. Some senators advocated for an aggressive tariff regime aimed at safeguarding U.S. manufacturers from China’s cost-effective yet high-quality products and services. However, this stance largely ignored the underlying inefficiencies within American manufacturing, the need for technological upgrades, and strategies to lower production costs. Others struck a middle ground, proposing a selective and strategic use of tariffs by targeting specific products and services where increased duties would not disrupt domestic manufacturing efficiency or unduly burden American consumers.

A recurring argument made by senators was that China engages in unfair trade practices by subsidizing its industries, allowing them to produce goods at lower costs, thereby outcompeting American businesses. However, this criticism overlooked a crucial aspect: the U.S. government itself employs similar mechanisms to support select industries through tax incentives, tax breaks, reduced levies, and regulatory advantages. These policies, while not explicitly labeled as subsidies, serve the same purpose—boosting domestic industries while limiting competition from foreign markets. Moreover, the senators failed to acknowledge that many Chinese industries, rather than being propped up by state subsidies, are highly profitable and contribute significant tax revenues. These revenues are then reinvested in struggling sectors, infrastructure, and research and development, reinforcing China’s economic growth and global competitiveness.

Rather than focusing solely on weakening China’s economic progress through tariffs, a more effective long-term strategy for the U.S. would be to strengthen its own industries through structural reforms. This would include improving manufacturing efficiency, reducing bureaucratic red tape, accelerating decision-making processes, and significantly increasing investment in research and development. Enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of American manufacturers would be a more sustainable solution than imposing reactionary tariffs.

“Ultimately, the best strategy for the U.S. is not to pull China down but to elevate itself through technological advancements, economic discipline, and sound policymaking. By fostering an environment that rewards innovation and competitiveness, the U.S. can position itself as a leader in global trade—not through protectionism, but through excellence and efficiency.

In Part II, we will explore Trump’s strategy to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its implications for global economic influence.

By: Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

USA Boosts Military, Names China Top Adversary