Daily Times

Pakistan stands at the precipice of significant judicial reform, a move that has the potential to reshape the entire legal landscape of the nation. However, as we approach the end of September 2024, the country finds itself embroiled in a complex web of political pushback, judicial hesitations, and public scepticism. The proposed amendments to the constitution, which aim to streamline judicial efficiency, extend judicial tenures, and create a Federal Constitutional Court, have become a lightning rod for controversy. Both the government and opposition are caught in a high-stakes game where the stakes are not just the judiciary’s future but the very soul of Pakistan’s democracy.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s government has championed the reforms as a necessary step forward for Pakistan’s judicial system. At the heart of these amendments is the promise of judicial efficiency, appointment transparency, and an expansion of the judiciary’s capacity to handle the growing caseload. The backlog of cases in Pakistan’s courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, has reached alarming proportions, leading to delays in justice that have plagued the legal system for decades. The government believes that the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court, tasked specifically with handling constitutional petitions, will alleviate this pressure and allow the Supreme Court to focus on civil and criminal cases.

However, behind these practical justifications, political undercurrents run deep. The opposition, led by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has been vociferous in its critique of the reforms, suggesting that they are designed more to consolidate political power than to ensure judicial efficiency. The proposed extension of the retirement age for judges, from 65 to 68 years, is seen as an attempt to retain judges sympathetic to the current government for a longer period. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, a figure with significant clout and perceived leanings toward the ruling coalition, has become a symbol of this controversy. Extending his tenure is seen by the opposition as a direct move to delay the appointment of new, potentially more neutral judges.

While these criticisms may seem politically charged, they do not lack merit. Pakistan’s judiciary, like many in the world, has often found itself at the intersection of law and politics. Historically, political parties in Pakistan have sought to influence the judiciary to align with their agendas, and these reforms are viewed by some as a continuation of that trend. The opposition’s stance is clear: they believe that the current government is leveraging judicial reform to create a judiciary that will remain loyal, particularly as the country heads toward pivotal elections in 2024.

To make matters more contentious, the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court has sparked concerns over the potential fragmentation of judicial power. While the government claims that this new court will reduce the burden on the Supreme Court, critics argue that it may serve to dilute the authority of the existing judiciary. The fear is that by carving out a separate court for constitutional matters, the government will have greater control over appointments to this new body, further entrenching its influence within the judicial system. The opacity surrounding the appointment process for judges to this new court only adds fuel to the fire, with civil society groups calling for greater transparency and accountability in the process.

Internationally, the situation in Pakistan draws striking parallels to judicial reform efforts seen in other countries. Poland, for instance, has faced severe backlash from the European Union over its attempts to reform the judiciary, with critics arguing that the changes were designed to undermine judicial independence and consolidate power within the executive branch. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s government enacted judicial reforms that similarly sparked concerns over political interference in the judiciary. Both cases serve as cautionary tales for Pakistan: reforms that are perceived as politically motivated, rather than aimed at genuine improvement, can lead to domestic unrest and international condemnation. The situation in Pakistan, while unique in its context, echoes these global examples. The push for judicial reform, while necessary to address inefficiencies, must be handled with care to avoid the perception of political overreach. In a country where political instability and judicial independence have historically been fragile, the stakes of these reforms are exceptionally high.

Adding to the complexity is the internal resistance within the judiciary itself. Judges, who are supposed to be the neutral arbiters of the law, find themselves caught in the crossfire of this political battle. Some within the judiciary have voiced concerns that the reforms could erode their independence, making them more susceptible to political pressure. This has led to an internal divide, with some judges supporting the reforms as a necessary step toward efficiency, while others fear that they will weaken the judiciary’s ability to hold the government accountable. The proposed amendments to judicial appointments and the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court have caused particular unease, as many judges feel that their authority could be undermined by these changes.

A more efficient judiciary could help address the systemic delays that have plagued Pakistan’s legal system for years.

But perhaps the greatest hurdle the government faces in pushing these reforms through is the lack of public consensus. While judicial reform may seem like a technocratic issue, it has far-reaching implications for the everyday lives of Pakistani citizens. A more efficient judiciary could mean faster resolution of cases, greater access to justice, and a more robust rule of law. However, the public remains largely in the dark about the specific details of the reforms. The government has struggled to effectively communicate the need for these changes, leaving space for opposition parties to fill the vacuum with their narratives. As a result, the public’s understanding of the reforms is shaped more by political rhetoric than by the actual content of the amendments.

The media, too, has played a role in shaping public opinion on the reforms, with many outlets taking sides in the debate. Some have portrayed the reforms as a power grab by the government, while others have emphasized the need for judicial efficiency and modernization. This polarization in the media has made it difficult for citizens to form an informed opinion, further complicating the government’s efforts to build support for the amendments.

The government’s inability to pass the reforms can also be attributed to the significant procedural hurdles involved. Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in parliament, a threshold that the ruling coalition has struggled to meet. With the opposition steadfast in its refusal to support the amendments, and divisions within the ruling coalition itself, the government has found itself in a legislative quagmire. In addition to the political obstacles, the ongoing economic crisis in the country has diverted attention away from the reforms. With inflation still high and public dissatisfaction growing, the government has been forced to prioritize economic issues over judicial reform, leaving the amendments on the back burner.

However, despite these challenges, the government remains committed to pushing the reforms through. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has repeatedly emphasized the importance of judicial reform for the long-term stability of Pakistan’s legal system. He has argued that the amendments are essential for ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner and that they will help restore public confidence in the judiciary. The government has also sought to engage with opposition parties and civil society groups to build consensus around the reforms, but these efforts have so far been met with limited success.

The impact of these reforms, if passed, will be far-reaching. A more efficient judiciary could help address the systemic delays that have plagued Pakistan’s legal system for years. It could also reduce the burden on the Supreme Court, allowing it to focus on more complex legal issues. However, these potential benefits must be weighed against the risks. If the reforms are perceived as politically motivated, they could further erode public trust in the judiciary and lead to increased political instability. Moreover, if the amendments are implemented without sufficient safeguards to protect judicial independence, they could pave the way for greater political interference in the judiciary.

Those who stand to benefit most from these reforms are, unsurprisingly, the government and the judiciary itself. The government would gain a more efficient judiciary that could expedite politically sensitive cases, while senior judges would benefit from the extension of their tenures. However, the opposition, particularly PTI, views these reforms as a direct threat to its political future. By extending the tenure of judges seen as sympathetic to the government, the opposition fears that the judiciary will be less likely to challenge government actions in the lead-up to the 2024 elections.

Pakistan’s judicial reforms and constitutional amendments represent a critical turning point for the country. While the government’s intentions may be rooted in a desire to modernize the judiciary, the proposed changes have sparked significant controversy. Concerns about political interference, the erosion of judicial independence, and the creation of a parallel judicial structure have all contributed to the delay in passing the reforms. If the government is to succeed in pushing these amendments through, it must do more to build a consensus, both within the political sphere and among the public. Only by engaging in open, transparent dialogue can the government hope to address the concerns raised by critics and ensure that the reforms are implemented in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, Pakistan’s judicial system. The next steps will be crucial, and the government must proceed with caution if it is to avoid the pitfalls that have plagued similar reform efforts in other countries.

The writer is a journalist, TV presenter & column writer. She can be reached via her insta account @farihaspeaks