To what degree pressure tactics influence judges?

ISLAMABAD:

Since the return of Maryam Nawaz, the Senior Vice President of the PML-N, from London, she has been focusing on reorganizing her beleaguered party and countering the rising popularity of Imran Khan, the Chairman of the PTI. Additionally, she has accused Imran Khan of using pressure tactics on key institutions, including the judiciary, to gain power.

To deal with the PTI chief’s public appeal and his apparent influence on institutions, Maryam Nawaz has directed her attention towards the judiciary, particularly a few Supreme Court judges, claiming that Imran is attempting to return to power by manipulating the judiciary.

In response, Imran and his party leaders lashed out at Maryam, accusing her of attacking the SC judges in an attempt to “pressure” them and to run away from elections.

Party leaders’ counter statements and tweets have accelerated as the apex court has taken up the matter of the delay in elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa while exercising suo motu powers.

The exchange of harsh words between Maryam and Imran on  Saturday on Twitter has not only further fuelled the allegations of pressuring the judiciary but led political experts to say that this was not the first time when the institutions were being targeted as it had happened in the past as well but with contrasting roles.

Eminent scholar Professor Dr Hassan Askari said it was not that easy to pressure the judiciary, but it had happened in the past.

He added that a “sustained campaign” was being run against the judiciary, saying even Defence Minister Khawaja Asif spoke against the top court and its judges in the National Assembly on Friday.

Read Maryam seeks to resurrect old narrative

Interestingly, Professor Askari pointed out that political parties keep on switching roles as PTI Chairman Imran had taken over the responsibility of speaking against the army from PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif.

He added that the PML-N had replaced the PTI in targeting the judiciary, fearing that it might order elections.

Usually, the professor noted, the judges were not easily swayed by statements. However, he added that campaigns did create problems as the people started issuing statements on the basis of their political affiliations and not on merit.

“Because of the sustained campaigns, the judges face a credibility crisis and their confidence is affected,” Professor Askari observed.

With the advent of mainstream and social media, Professor Askari noted, the opportunities for a campaign had increased manifold.

In his opinion, previously only state-run media was there and easy to control but matters had drastically changed after the emergence of social media.

Commenting on the famous sentence that judges should speak through their judgments”, Professor Askari said that hundreds of developments occurred between two judgments.

“As judges can’t tweet, they feel let down because they have to face criticism and propaganda even when they haven’t done anything wrong,” the professor explained.

Read more SC judges take stock of audio leaks

Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) President Ahmed Bilal Mehboob said ideally the judiciary should not be pressured or influenced but the “street sentiments” do influence it.

The Pildat chief elaborated that public sentiments had remained and were still helpful in pressuring the courts whenever the judges were about to decide on some major issue.

Mehboob recalled that all parties had not only used the tactic in the past but taken advantage as well. However, he added that the judges should only decide the cases as per the law instead of giving their rulings on the basis of popularity.

“Cases shouldn’t be decided on the basis of someone’s popularity; this is not a popularity contest. For that [purpose] we have elections,” Mehboob observed.

“Gone are the days when the judges avoided reading newspapers, not watching TV and refraining themselves from socialisation so that their decision-making was not influenced,” the Pildat chief explained.

He regretted that now some of the judges not only indulged in all these activities but also read social media posts as well as the tickers running on TV screens.

“They [judges] keep an eye on the TV tickers and even see what remarks are aired and what aren’t,” Mehboob said.

“Some judges no longer work in isolation; they are swayed by these things and, sadly, that shouldn’t be happening in the first place,” he added.

In his opinion, judges should not make decisions just because the majority would appreciate them.