Nearly a week after a controversial “working weekend” in Islamabad sent shockwaves across the nation, politicians from both sides of the divide remain overwhelmed by the tragicomedy. As government’s ally Bilawal Bhutto Zardari insists the version of the “constitutional package” floating on television screens was “not real,” Opposition Leader Omar Ayub Khan is not in the mood to mince words, claiming he (along with several others) had no prior knowledge about the amendments. Meanwhile, the chatter on the street suggests another attempt to tame the judiciary shortly. No matter where one may stand on the political spectrum, it is becoming extremely difficult to justify the recent actions of the government as they raised serious concerns about the future of judicial independence in our democracy. If the Sharif administration held any regard for strengthening the fundamental principles of democracy, it was, unfortunately, way too naive to let speculations rule the roost. Building a new narrative on top of raging whispers about eroding the separation of powers would not be as easy of a task as its spokespersons appear to have believed. One particularly troubling aspect is the attempt to prevent Justice Mansoor Ali Shah from becoming the next Chief Justice. Although many in the cabinet have talked about upholding the status quo in media interactions, a lot more needs to be done as damage control to the in-vogue song and dance on curbing judicial independence. The most alarming proposal refers to the said attempt to give the Prime Minister the power to appoint the Chief Justice, restrict the Chief Justice’s tenure to three years, and hold judges of the superior courts accountable to the executive in a gross violation of the principle of the judiciary’s autonomy, which Islamabad should not waste any time in clearing the air about. In established democracies, the judiciary operates independently to check the powers of the executive and legislature. Every passing day would prove to add to the government’s troubles when and if it tries to clarify its stance on the alleged measures to reduce the stature of judges of the superior judiciary. Whatever is hidden behind this shroud of secrecy should be discussed in broad daylight so that the entire state and its institutions can work together to reach an agreement on how to proceed. Suffering from never-ending grievances on the economic front and trying to establish its writ on the weakest imaginable footing, there is literally no place on the plate for a confrontation with the bar and the bench. *