Adil Najam
Today (Monday) was supposed to be the big showdown between the Supreme Court and the Government on the question of the legality of the 18th Amendment. The date for that showdown has been pushed forward to the end of the month. Tomorrow (Tuesday) is supposed to be anther big showdown between the Supreme Court and the Government; on the issue of the NRO and its beneficiaries.
Irrespective of the questions about which way either of these should or would go (or why), one looks at the news and wonders if this tension and tussle between the Supreme Judiciary and the Government has gone too far. We thought we should ask you: is this good, bad, or outright ugly?
More importantly, what might be the impacts of these developments on the institutional structures and precedents in Pakistan. Is this a sign of a maturing institutional landscape where a new balance of power and a system of checks and balances is emerging? Or is this a sign of impending breakdown of the institutional balance?
What do you think. Especially, what do you think about the longer-range impacts of these developments. No matter how these cases end, will they leave Pakistan’s politics stronger, or weaker? And why?
We are moving towards judicial dictatorship now. Thats very painful to me who has staunchly supported lawyers’ movement. Now judges have started giving speeches as politician. If a unanimous ammendment can be challenged or made void by judiciary, it will be a disastrous example for the future, no less evil than the “Doctrine of necesseity”
Judiciary has allied itself with right wing groups like PMLN, PTI, JI and jihadi sponsored journalists. This is not the judiciary for which people sacrificed and struggled. It is now playing a power game.
GEO and Jang group which is defaulter if 1.8 Billion in taxes is surviving on stay order of judiciary in return playing ugly game of right wing.
How can one justify appointment of all JI, PMLN and Hamid Khan judges in High Court and Supreme Court, most of them fanatic religious and incompetent, and Ramday, a known enemy of PPP and PML supporter in SC!
What happened to 12th may enquiry?
What about missing persons?
Why Nawaz gets speedy justice and that too unprecedented in history of judiciary?
Who is pleasing Mullah by ‘judicial interference’ in to executive matters like ban on FB?
Can anyone with honesty say that Rehman Malik’s case was dismissed rightly?
Can any one say that PPP isnot being targetted?
What about Asghar Khan’s case?
List goes on!
Where is civil society, youth, human right activists and honest lawyers who lead the movement? All in state ofshock and disbelief. Now its Ansar Abbasi, Hamid Mir, corrupt Akram Shaikh, Hamid Khan alike – charging hefy fees and getting judges.
This is not the judiciary for which we struggled. We would have to come out to send it home if we want to save Pakistan. Mullah- Judges alliance has already damaged Pakistan a lot and we do not afford the repeat of Zia judiciary this time.
A long March against judiciary is inevitable.
I am surprised that so many people think this is a good thing. I am a fan of the CJ but I think things are getting a little out of hand these days.
In this instance, I have reservations about this poll because answers to the question that’s been posed here are actually related to a more basic issue. And that is, how should we move forward on accountability? Is selective accountability better than no accountability? Or should we really seek accountability at all, if it is difficult to have across the board accountability? I think it would be more fruitful to have a poll on that because, at the end of the day, the arguments on this particular poll will mostly be directly or indirectly based on what people think about accountability and how it should or should not be pursued.
Some people argue that the courts should not focus on Zardari alone, and NS and Generals should also be given the same treatment. In principle, that’s the right thing to say. In practice, it is impossible, because if the courts open cases against all of them at the same time, then the army, PPP and PML-N will all make common cause to stop the accountability process, and get rid of the judiciary. That is, unless we have such overwhelming street power that we can defeat the collective might of all these 3 entities.
With such street power absent, the only practical options for the judiciary are the following:
(a) pick cases carefully and avoid taking on everyone in the same breath. This means there won’t be perfect, across the board accountability that we would ideally like to have, but at least there will be some accountability.
(b) avoid any accountability and let everyone get away scot free.
Now, if you believe that some accountability is better than no accountability at all, then you would prefer (a). If you subscribe to the opposite view, then you would opt for (b).
A 2nd issue relates to the price of accountability. Naturally, when the judiciary takes on a case against some people in the govt, then it creates a clash and causes instability. Under what conditions is such instability worth risking?
(This was also a question worth asking when Musharraf’s ineligibility case was being heard by the courts.)
This poll becomes superficial because beneath the surface are people’s opinions on the above two questions (selective accountability vs no accountability and in what situation does it make sense to risk instability in pursuit of accountability or some other cause), without anyone really addressing these more fundamental issues and elaborating their views. For instance, Eideeman says he believes selective accountability is more dangerous than no accountability, and if this is an indication, his vote will be that this confrontation will do more harm than good. But he hasn’t clarified why he thinks so (and Eidee, I would really appreciate if you elaborated it for our benifit), because the poll doesn’t ask anything about this more underlying question.
Well as far as i remember, 18th amendment case is not a suo-moto action, rather a constitutional petition filed by lawyers and other peopl. It is the job of supreme court to listen to everyone in this regard. so creating a poll and an impression that through listening to people, SC is overstepping, is not right. this poll would be more appropriate if we could at least learn what is the SC’s mood about 18th amendment.