Exigency-laden dictums
Listen to article
The elevation of six high court justices to the apex court prior to settling the row over the controversial 26th amendment has left a bad taste. It is in contravention of the spirit of independence of judiciary. It is a foregone conclusion that the superior judiciary at the JCP was acting in duress, and under the influence of the executive. Chief Justice Yahya Afridi should have made a patient hearing to the call for postponing the appointment of judges, and must have given due credence to the call from two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for a deferment. He could have scheduled it for another time to make it an ordained decision, after addressing legal complications. But the haste with which it has been done has raised eyebrows and proven beyond doubt the rifts within the judiciary.
The convention to bulldoze dissenting voices is taking a toll on the Constitution and democracy. Though the lawyers' somewhat symbolic protest over the JCP meeting was noticeable, it could not push the envelope in prevailing over an adamant attitude of the government to subdue the judiciary. It is quite surprising that daredevil controversial legislations and dictums are being undertaken. The passage of PECA laws and putting on backburner indispensable constitutional petitions are cases in point. This all has come as delegations from the European Union and the IMF were in the federal capital, scrutinising on human rights, reforms and merits of lawful governance. The threat from the EU to slash the GSP-Plus rating, and the Washington-based donor's concerns over judicial freedom, could push the country in a renewed phase of financial and political crises.
The IMF's seeking of guarantees on protection of international investments from the Chief Justice should come as a grim reminder that all is not well in the republic. With the media and judiciary in a shambles, and the parliament unable to see the light of the day in true constitutional spirit, what is going on at the behest of the executive is disappointing, and does not bode well for rule of law. Time to revisit the exigency-laden decisions in wider national interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Three Iranians charged in UK over alleged plot targeting journalists
The Old Bailey is seen, ahead of the arrival of Ali Harbi Ali, 25, suspect in the murder of British MP David Amess, who is due to appear in court, in London, Britain, October 22, 2021. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Three Iranian men appeared in court in London on Friday accused of assisting Iran's foreign intelligence service and plotting violence against journalists working for a British-based broadcaster critical of Tehran. The three men - Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, - have been charged with offences under Britain's National Security Act, brought in to give the authorities new powers to target threats from foreign states. They are accused of "engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service" between August 2024 and February this year, and police have said that it related to Iran. Sepahvand is also charged with carrying out surveillance in preparation to commit serious violence against a person, while Manesh and Noori were charged with surveillance with the intention that serious violent acts would be committed by others. The men appeared by videolink on Friday for a brief hearing at London's Old Bailey court during which their lawyers said all intended to plead not guilty to the charges. Prosecutors told a hearing last month that the allegations involved the targeting of journalists based in Britain connected with Iran International, a broadcaster critical of the Iranian government. They were remanded in custody until a formal plea hearing on September 26 and they are due to go on trial in October next year. The suspects were arrested last month on the same day counter-terrorism police detained five other men, including four Iranians, as part of a separate operation. Those men were later released without charge.
Business Recorder
7 hours ago
- Business Recorder
EU ‘deeply regrets' US sanctions on ICC judges
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM: The EU 'deeply regrets' the US sanctions imposed on four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the European Commission said Friday, voicing full support for the Hague-based court. 'The ICC holds perpetrators of the world's gravest crimes to account and gives victims a voice,' Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen posted on X. 'It must be free to act without pressure.' 'We deeply regret the decision to impose sanctions on four additional individuals,' added commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper. 'We will provide the full support and contribution to ensure the protection of the court and its staff,' she told reporters. The sanctions imposed Thursday – in part over the ICC arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – come as Washington ramps up its efforts to neuter the court. Israel urges ICC to drop arrest warrants against PM Neither United States nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute that established the court in 2002, to prosecute individuals for the world's gravest crimes when countries are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Two of the targeted judges, Beti Hohler of Slovenia and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin, took part in proceedings that led to the warrant being issued for Netanyahu last November. The other two, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru and Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, were part of proceedings that led to a probe into allegations US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. European Council chief Antonio Costa earlier underscored the EU's support for the ICC, which he said 'does not stand against nations – it stands against impunity.' 'We must protect its independence and integrity. The rule of law must prevail over the rule of power,' Costa wrote on X.
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump ban on entry of international Harvard students blocked by US judge
BOSTON: A federal judge in Boston on Thursday temporarily blocked U.S. President Donald Trump from barring U.S. entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University. Under a two-page temporary restraining order granted to Harvard, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs enjoined Trump's proclamation from taking effect pending further litigation of the matter amid an escalating dispute between the Ivy League school and Republican president. The judge ruled that Trump's directive prohibiting foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard for the next six months would cause 'immediate and irreparable injury' before the courts have a chance to review the case. Burroughs last month had blocked Trump from implementing a separate order prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students, who make up more than a quarter of its student body. Harvard on Thursday amended its lawsuit to challenge the new directive, claiming Trump is violating Burroughs' decision. 'The Proclamation denies thousands of Harvard's students the right to come to this country to pursue their education and follow their dreams, and it denies Harvard the right to teach them. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the school said in the filing. Burroughs' order on Thursday also continued a separate temporary restraining order she issued on May 23 against the administration's restriction on international student enrollment at Harvard. Earlier on Thursday, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson called Harvard 'a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators,' claims that the school has previously denied. 'Harvard's behavior has jeopardized the integrity of the entire U.S. student and exchange visitor visa system and risks compromising national security. Now it must face the consequences of its actions,' Jackson said in a statement. Trump cited national security concerns as justification for barring international students from entering the U.S. to pursue studies at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. Under Trump's proclamation, the suspension would initially be for six months but could be extended. Trump's order also directed the U.S. State Department to consider revoking academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet his proclamation's criteria. In Thursday's court filing, Harvard said Trump had violated federal law by failing to back up his claims about national security. 'The Proclamation does not deem the entry of an alien or class of aliens to be detrimental to the interests of the United States, because noncitizens who are impacted by the Proclamation can enter the United States — just so long as they go somewhere other than Harvard,' the school said. The Trump administration has launched a multifront attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding and proposing to end its tax-exempt status, prompting a series of legal challenges. Trump administration ramps up attack on Harvard, Columbia Harvard argues the administration is retaliating against it for refusing to accede to demands to control the school's governance, curriculum and the ideology of its faculty and students. The university sued after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on May 22 that her department was immediately revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to enroll foreign students. Noem's action was temporarily blocked almost immediately by Burroughs. On the eve of a hearing before her last week, the department changed course and said it would instead challenge Harvard's certification through a lengthier administrative process. Nonetheless, Burroughs said she planned to issue a longer-term preliminary injunction at Harvard's urging, saying one was necessary to give some protection to Harvard's international students. Wednesday's two-page directive from Trump said Harvard had 'demonstrated a history of concerning foreign ties and radicalism,' and had 'extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries,' including China. It said Harvard had seen a 'drastic rise in crime in recent years while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus,' and had failed to provide sufficient information to the Homeland Security Department about foreign students' 'known illegal or dangerous activities.' The school in Thursday's court filing said those claims were unsubstantiated.
