In Pakistan on April 9, Justice Athar Minallah’s comments regarding Nawaz Sharif’s continuation until the next court session sparked controversy. They highlighted a judicial system seen as becoming more intertwined with political maneuverings and potentially losing its neutrality.
However, what stood out as even more remarkable were his actions to inaugurating the Islamabad High Court (IHC) just after midnight on April 9, 2022. This move coincided precisely with Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s announcement to hold an exceptional session of the Supreme Court (SC) at the very same moment.
The coordinated midnight operation aimed to tackle an impending political and legal crisis as former Prime Minister Imran Khan approached his last moments in power.
It should be remembered that in early 2022, Pakistan faced a significant political crisis. Opposition parties, allegedly supported by the military establishment, were uniting efforts to remove Khan from power via a no-confidence motion.
In an attempt to alleviate growing pressures and avoid the impending no-confidence vote, Khan chose to dissolve the National Assembly on April 3rd, announcing plans for fresh elections.
The opposition contested the action, labeling it as an unlawful effort to maintain control. On April 7th, the SCP ruled the dissolution invalid and mandated that the no-confidence vote should go ahead. This vote was set for April 9th; however, as the day progressed toward nightfall, tensions rose significantly, raising doubts about whether the voting process would actually take place.
The SCP has clearly stated that the no-confidence motion should go ahead without any delays. Any postponement would be seen as an act of disobedience towards this directive, which could lead to charges of contempt of court. Given this backdrop, both the IHC and the SCP decided to take the extraordinary measure of convening past midnight.
Following the guidelines strictly, the court ought to have awaited the supposed violator to contravene their directives. Consequently, there wasn’t an imperative necessity to take preemptive action based merely on conjecture.
However, for certain individuals, this choice underscored the judicial system’s active part in protecting the Constitution; hence, it was celebrated as a “preventative step” aimed at preventing any delays or hindrances to the voting process, irrespective of the judiciary’s ruling.
The contentious ruling was defended as crucial for safeguarding Pakistan’s democratic structure. Considering Khan’s “unlawful attempt to dismantle the National Assembly,” judicial involvement was seen as vital to “avoid future occurrences of such acts” with the aim of reinforcing democratic systems and averting possible misuse of authority by the executive branch.
To summarize, this innovative ruling emphasized the judicial branch’s responsibility as a guardian of the constitution; confirmed its power to step in when constitutional principles might be endangered; and underscored its dedication to maintaining the rule of law, particularly during exceptional situations.
This ruling further solidified the authority of an implicated-oppressor judicial system, showing that it will firmly take action to “uphold its decisions and stop any possible breaches of constitutional procedures” – carried out against civilians!
Nevertheless, the unexpected ruling was widely regarded as a scripted show.
The synchronized spectacle was more than merely an irregular procedure. It represented a significant deviation from conventional legal standards; a blatant indication of allegiance to politics; an unambiguous marker of the judiciary’s surrender to outside pressure; and raised serious doubts about its fairness and autonomy.
External observers saw the “forward-leaning measure” as clear proof of prejudice within the judiciary. They contended that these extraordinary steps to guarantee Khan’s ousting indicated a significant absence of impartiality in the legal system, with several implying that the courts were deliberately opposing him.
The term “midnight justice” was used to describe an injustice that highlighted the double standards within Pakistan’s legal framework, where such urgent attention was seldom afforded to cases concerning average citizens.
Moreover, the judiciary seemed to prioritize political results over judicial propriety, highlighting its excessive involvement in cases with significant political implications.
The exceptional reaction to a singular political crisis set a problematic benchmark for judicial involvement in such situations, granting it the ability to intervene in political disagreements without facing consequences.
The rapid judicial action taken on April 9, 2022, was remarkable due to its immediate nature. Nevertheless, contrasting this promptness, later developments in 2023 witnessed significant postponements and even resistance towards executing these orders when it came to conducting provincial elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), all under the leadership of the same Chief Justice.
The SCP mandated that these elections should take place within 90 days after the disbandment of the relevant provincial assemblies. However, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rescheduled the Punjab polls from April 30 to October 8, 2023, due to worries over security and finances.
The SCP ruled that the delay was unconstitutional and mandated that the elections take place by May 14, 2023. However, once again, this deadline was missed.
As a result, the judiciary faced challenges from both the executive and legislative arms of the government, resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, the protectors of the Constitution remained silent. There were no proactive measures taken, no preemptive actions initiated, not even a contempt of court notice or any hasty judicial decisions!
This sequence of astonishing occurrences highlights the compromised-judiciary’s capabilities, weaknesses, and hierarchical stance on justice, where different criteria are applied for its supporters versus everyone else.
The judicial system requires a dramatic overhaul. It must be reminded of the fate suffered by Sisamnes, a judge during the rule of Cambyses II, the Persian monarch from the Achaemenid Dynasty (560-522 BC), as well as the consequences of divine displeasure.
(To be continued)
