The Chinese ambassador, in his recent meeting with Nawaz Sharif, highlighted Pakistan’s ongoing political turmoil, signaling concern from nations with significant interests in the country. Political stability is essential for achieving economic stability, and any constitutional amendments at this critical juncture would only exacerbate existing challenges, deepening the political divide.
Opinion
Ansar M Bhatti
Interestingly, there has never been a dull moment in Pakistan. Since its inception, the country has faced continual turmoil, which perhaps explains why we lag behind nations that gained independence after Pakistan. From the very beginning, the country’s elite embarked on a mission to dominate all spheres. Politicians sought to maintain control over the political domain at any cost, the business elite took over key enterprises, and, above all, the Establishment endeavored to assert control over everything. As a result, the country’s affairs have deteriorated, and a true democratic order, along with the rule of law, has struggled to take root in this so-called “land of the pure.” The judiciary also sought to expand its influence and authority when the opportunity to seize power arose.
Historically, the judiciary has often acted as a facilitator in reinforcing the control of the Establishment, particularly in domestic affairs. Whether it was the hanging of former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the overthrow of Nawaz Sharif’s government, or more recently the dislodging of Imran Khan’s government, the judiciary has frequently played a pivotal role—most often aligning with the powers that be.
Recently, we have observed a growing sense of ‘defiance’ within the superior judiciary. This began when six judges of the Islamabad High Court wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council, highlighting interference from the Establishment in judicial matters. Initially, the letter stirred some controversy, but over time, the issue appears to have been quietly set aside.
The ongoing tug-of-war among Supreme Court judges has taken center stage, with analysts suggesting that the incumbent Chief Justice is playing the role of a ‘facilitator’ in the conflict between the judges, the Election Commission, and the government. A recent verdict by eight judges, led by Senior Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, directed the Election Commission to allocate reserved seats to the PTI. In response, the Election Commission and the government have been using delaying tactics, aware that implementing the judgment would position the PTI as the largest party in the National Assembly. This shift would also prevent the ruling coalition from securing the two-thirds majority needed for constitutional amendments. From the public’s perspective, this ongoing maneuvering has made the situation intriguing. However, these developments do not bode well for the future of the rule of law or for maintaining a cooperative relationship among state institutions.
The government attempted to secure a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution but failed to persuade JUI Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, temporarily halting its plans. Despite this setback, the government remains determined to establish the Constitutional Court as the highest court in Pakistan. However, legal experts and lawyers argue that having two courts with equal authority could lead to confusion and conflict. Many political parties, including those in the ruling coalition, have voiced concerns about these proposed changes. Nevertheless, they feel pressured to comply, as opposing the plan may cost them their positions.
No one can claim with certainty that the new Constitutional Court will be free from error, nor that the judges appointed by the government will be infallible or immune to influence, coercion, manipulation, or pressure.
To genuinely reform the judicial system, political parties must start from the grassroots. The lower judiciary, in particular, requires urgent and comprehensive reform. Currently, those seeking justice are forced to navigate a maze of bureaucratic hurdles, often having to resort to bribery to influence those in power. This deeply entrenched corruption allows even individuals guilty of heinous crimes to exploit loopholes and escape accountability. Without addressing these systemic flaws in the lower judiciary, true justice remains inaccessible to many, and any reforms at higher levels will only offer superficial improvements.
Hence the idea of the Constitutional Court appears to be an attempt to further strengthen foothold the powers-that-be, particularly on the judiciary because the Judiciary turns out to be a force that can pose a challenge at any time. Therefore the establishment of the Constitutional Court composed of judges of government choice becomes vital for such powers.
If the government genuinely intends to reform the superior judiciary to reduce case backlogs, establishing this court could occur at any time. Why, then, is it deemed necessary to launch it in October? This timing raises significant concerns.
The government’s apparent motivation for an October launch likely stems from two key factors. First, it aims to finalize the court before the SCO summit in the second week of October. Second, reports suggest a desire to appoint CJP Qazi Faez Isa as the first Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, coinciding with his retirement that same month. However, this second option may have backfired; Justice Faez Isa has become a controversial figure. Appointing someone with existing controversies could taint the new court’s reputation before it even begins, jeopardizing the entire initiative. And that may not be a significant issue for the real forces behind this idea, as finding like-minded judges is hardly a challenge.
In conclusion, the political and economic landscape is likely to face further turbulence in the coming days and months. The Chinese ambassador, in his recent meeting with Nawaz Sharif, highlighted Pakistan’s ongoing political turmoil, signaling concern from nations with significant interests in the country. Political stability is essential for achieving economic stability, and any constitutional amendments at this critical juncture would only exacerbate existing challenges, deepening the political divide.
