The order by a district and sessions court in Islamabad for the police to register a murder case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and 10 of his cabinet members and close aides is surprising given the evidence the court had before it. Hearing a petition by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), the court on Monday ordered that police begin investigating the deaths of three protestors on the night of August 30. Superficially the court appears to be doing its duty, i.e. questioning whether the government violated the fundamental rights of citizens by ordering police to disperse violent protestors. However, whether this translates into a charge of murder is questionable. Events on August 30 show the police responding with teargas once protestors climbed the fence of the Presidency. If specific instances of brutality were recorded, the investigation should focus on the policemen involved. Charging the PM with murder because three protestors died on a night when they attacked government buildings seems more like a priest trying to be holier than the pope than a legitimate investigation into the deaths. The police investigation will likely conclude this, since at least two protestors died after falling into a ditch near Constitution Avenue, which television channels reported at the time. This does not even constitute manslaughter. What seems more likely is that with the ruling party already in trouble over its alleged involvement in the deaths of protestors in Model Town on June 16, the court felt it was better to be safe than sorry. The question is whether, as has happened before, the courts are being drawn into a situation where their neutrality will be compromised. Courts and politics in Pakistan have a long history of being closer than is considered appropriate. A report by the International Bar Association says: “Martial law periods in Pakistan attempted to control the higher judiciary. Successive governments have continued to exercise influence over the judiciary. Judicial appointments were made in consideration of political allegiance.” This trend was reversed only recently after the lawyers movement against President Pervez Musharraf. The ability of powerful people to manipulate the legal system was also noted by Amnesty International, which said: “The ease with which criminal charges are brought and dropped indicates that they are not always based on solid evidence.” With the PTI breathing down their necks, the pressure on the courts to take action is tremendous. The PTI itself appears invigorated. Contrary to the belief that the party would find itself out in the cold after hobbling the government to a degree, a string of protests around the country have continued to maintain pressure. With the judiciary appearing overzealous in protecting the people’s rights and the PTI appearing unready to back down, the government’s strategy of masterful inaction is unlikely to bear fruit. Pressure it seems will continue to mount, though to what end remains uncertain. Given Pakistan’s history, there are only a few possible outcomes. *