Exigency-laden dictums
The elevation of six high court justices to the apex court prior to settling the row over the controversial 26th amendment has left a bad taste. It is in contravention of the spirit of independence of judiciary. It is a foregone conclusion that the superior judiciary at the JCP was acting in duress, and under the influence of the executive. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi should have made a patient hearing to the call for postponing the appointment of judges, and must have given due credence to the call from two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for a deferment. He could have scheduled it for another time to make it an ordained decision, after addressing legal complications. But the haste with which it has been done has raised eyebrows and proven beyond doubt the rifts within the judiciary.
The convention to bulldoze dissenting voices is taking a toll on the Constitution and democracy. Though the lawyers' somewhat symbolic protest over the JCP meeting was noticeable, it could not push the envelope in prevailing over an adamant attitude of the government to subdue the judiciary. It is quite surprising that daredevil controversial legislations and dictums are being undertaken. The passage of PECA laws and putting on backburner indispensable constitutional petitions are cases in point. This all has come as delegations from the European Union and the IMF were in the federal capital, scrutinising on human rights, reforms and merits of lawful governance. The threat from the EU to slash the GSP-Plus rating, and the Washington-based donor's concerns over judicial freedom, could push the country in a renewed phase of financial and political crises.
The IMF's seeking of guarantees on protection of international investments from the Chief Justice should come as a grim reminder that all is not well in the republic. With the media and judiciary in a shambles, and the parliament unable to see the light of the day in true constitutional spirit, what is going on at the behest of the executive is disappointing, and does not bode well for rule of law. Time to revisit the exigency-laden decisions in wider national interest.