Pakistan’s judiciary’s selective application of justice has never been as blatant as in the case of Nawaz Sharif, who was granted unprecedented relief under the guise of a medical emergency that was never convincingly substantiated. With astonishing speed and unquestioning acceptance of dubious medical reports, the courts allowed a convict to flee, setting aside legal precedents and due process. It will be recalled that on 28 July 2017, Sharif completed a hat-trick of dismissals as Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, on charges of corruption. The sentence was awarded in a unanimous verdict of 5-member bench of the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers (Imran Khan versus Nawaz Sharif) Case. The court found that Sharif was neither Sadiq (truthful) nor Amin (honest), as required by Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution. In other words, he was a compulsive liar and genetically dishonest. On 6 July 2018, Sharif, his daughter Maryam, and son-in-law, Safdar, were convicted by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in the Avenfield Apartments Case. They were awarded 10 years, 7 years and 1-year imprisonment respectively; and approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) with an appeal against their convictions. With astonishing speed and unquestioning acceptance of dubious medical reports, the courts allowed a convict to flee, setting aside legal precedents and due process. On 19 September, the IHC granted them bails and suspended their sentences, pending decisions on appeals against their convictions. The NAB challenged IHC’s decision in the Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, on 24 December 2018, Sharif, true to his salt, was sentenced to another 7 years in prison and fined $25 million in the Azizia Mills Case. The NAB’s appeal against the IHC’s decision to bail out Sharifs was heard by the Supreme Court. On 14 January 2019, as discussed in Part-VI, Chief Justice Khosa, having dismissed the grounds on which the bails had been granted, upheld the IHC’s decision, unbelievably! This set in motion the events that culminated in Sharif’s eventual flight to London. The subsequent developments suggested that Khosa’s controversial ruling served as a green signal for the lower courts to go soft on Sharifs. Cashing in on Khosa’s ruling, Sharif started pushing for permission to go abroad for medical treatment, citing critical health issues. The petitions were based on medical reports that claimed that he was suffering from life-threatening health conditions, including rapidly fluctuating platelet levels. The reports were authored by doctors from the government-run Services Hospital in Lahore and supplemented by private medical experts. The reports suggested that his condition required immediate treatment abroad due to lack of appropriate facilities in Pakistan. However, the authenticity of the reports was questioned by political opponents, who accused Sharif and his aides of fabricating or exaggerating his health issues to secure his release. It was alleged that the establishment may have played a behind-the-scenes role in facilitating Sharif’s departure. The reports were, nonetheless, officially presented to the government and judiciary by medical professionals, who stood by their assessments. On 25 October 2019, a two-member bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC), comprising Justices Ali Baqar Najafi and Sardar Ahmad Naeem, granted medical bail to Nawaz Sharif in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case, leaning heavily on compassionate grounds, citing his “deteriorating health condition”. The decision allowed him to receive medical treatment within Pakistan. A day later, Islamabad High Court (IHC) followed suit. A two-member bench, led by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, granted him interim medical bail in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills Case, where he was serving a seven-year sentence. This decision was also based on his “critical health condition” and allowed him medical treatment within the country. On 16 November 2019, the above-mentioned two-member bench of LHC, led by Justice Najafi, heard Sharif’s petition to travel abroad for medical treatment. The petition was based on medical reports and assurances from his legal team that his condition was critical and required treatment was unavailable in Pakistan. The court started the hearing at 11:00 am and, after multiple breaks, delivered the verdict around 6:00 pm, significantly exceeding the standard working hours. The court allowed Sharif to travel abroad for medical treatment for four weeks, extendable on medical advice. Dismissing the government’s demand of Rs 7 billion indemnity bond as a condition for allowing Sharif to travel abroad, the court ordered it to remove his name from the Exit Control List (ECL), and let him travel unconditionally. The LHC, in a bid to be seen as fair, demanded Sharif to submit an undertaking as an alternative to the indemnity bond. The court itself drafted the undertaking, which was signed by Sharif’s younger brother, Shehbaz. But this was just an eye-wash. An indemnity bond is a legally binding guarantee, involving financial implications, enforced through legal mechanism. And undertaking is a personal assurance, which is legally significant but without immediate financial implications. If violated, it could result in contempt of court proceedings. Sharif left for London on 19 November 2019 and stayed there for almost four years, thanks to the wording of the court order as also of Shehbaz’s undertaking, drafted by the court. It is generally believed that the judiciary had been unduly lenient in accepting Sharif’s “dubious” medical reports at face value; and that it would have followed normal procedures and precedents in the case of ordinary citizens. While Sharif’s legal team cited medical emergencies as the basis for his release, independent medical evaluations were not widely available. The reliance on reports from his personal doctors, without comprehensive cross-verification from neutral experts, cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the claims and the necessity of foreign treatment. Likewise, the removal of a convict’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL) and granting bail is uncommon and typically follows stringent procedures. But Sharif’s case was handled with unusual alacrity, bypassing laws and established judicial procedures. Besides, individuals convicted of serious crimes, are normally not allowed to go out of the court’s territorial jurisdiction. But, as an exceptional case, Sharif was not only allowed but also without an indemnity bond. The government initially opposed Sharif’s departure but eventually agreed, albeit with conditions. It appeared that the judiciary and government were either manipulated or willingly complicit, in facilitating his “escape.” It was felt that institutional pressures might have influenced the decision, given the historically close relationship between the country’s judiciary, establishment, and the Sharifs. This feeling was confirmed by reports that Sharif avoided publicly sharing the results of his medical tests, conducted on his arrival at London. This added credibility to suspicions that the medical condition, reported by Pakistani doctors, was fabricated or exaggerated, which he used as an excuse to elude accountability. Besides, his apparently instant recovery and public appearances in London reconfirmed this impression. In short, this case presented a glaring example of legal favouritism that challenged the rule of law, undermined the judiciary’s prestige and left an unmistakable message for the common man that this was not going to be such last case. The judiciary, which had shown no hesitation in disqualifying and convicting political opponents, now played the role of a facilitator rather than an arbiter of justice. From questionable medical assessments to legal loopholes exploited in broad daylight, the entire episode revealed not just the influence wielded by Sharif but also the judiciary’s willingness to accommodate him at any cost. The story of Judiciary’s romance with Sharifs will remain incomplete if we did not mention IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah’s deep concern, profound curiosity and soul-searching inquiry about the convict’s life-span. (To be continued) The author is a former diplomat, based in Canberra and can be reached at khizar_niazi @hotmail.com