
Executive's grip on judiciary tightens
ISLAMABAD:
The appointment of seven Supreme Court judges under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has sparked concerns that the superior judiciary has fallen under complete executive influence.
Former senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar raised alarms over the process, saying that as a string of recent events rocks the judiciary, the appointments have hammered the final nail in the coffin of its credibility.
"Our judiciary's record is nothing to shout home about but in the manner these new appointments were carried out without first hearing the petitions challenging the very process of selection has robbed the institution of any last remaining bits of credibility," he lamented.
He noted that amid the testing times, where freedom of expression through PECA has been curtailed, politics has been reduced to subservience and independence of the judiciary has been compromised, one would have expected CJ Afridi to have played a more proactive role.
Despite facing resistance from some fellow judges, CJP Afridi, as chairman of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), has appointed 43 judges to superior courts, including the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The scale of these appointments during a single chief justice's short tenure is unprecedented.
It is widely acknowledged that had CJP Afridi resisted, it would have been difficult for the government to induct judges aligned with its interests into the superior judiciary. However, there is a growing perception that he facilitated the government following the 26th constitutional amendment.
Rather than convening a full court in line with the majority decision of the committee, CJP Afridi summoned a JCP meeting in November to consider Supreme Court judges for the constitutional bench. The government successfully secured the appointment of a judge aligned with its stance as the head of the constitutional bench.
Subsequently, without waiting for a final decision on the 26th Amendment, CJP Afridi invited nominations for judges of the high courts and Supreme Court. At every step, he refrained from dampening the executive's expectations, particularly regarding judicial appointments.
Following the alleged "court packing" in the Supreme Court, the likelihood of rolling back the 26th constitutional amendment appears slim under the current circumstances.
A lawyer believed that the government was unlikely to accept a judicial decision striking down the 26th Amendment. For the first time, the judiciary appears weaker than the executive.
Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana described recent developments as defining moments for Pakistan's future, saying that the events of February 10 have actually determined the future course of the nation for the next few decades.
Reflecting on history, he drew parallels with past judicial compromises.
"If history is any guide, it reminds me of CJ Munir, who was appointed CJ of the federal court in 1954 out of turn bypassing Bengali judges and Justice Cornelius, who was senior to him."
"He then obliged the Governor-General by fixing judicial stamp of approval upon the unconstitutional dissolution of the constituent assembly," he further recalled.
He said democracy was derailed for over two decades, and the first free elections were held in 1970. In the absence of an independent judiciary, there is no democracy and no freedom. Pakistan has seemingly braced for an undemocratic system, and the handpicked judiciary is going to look the other way.
Despite the desire of powerful quarters, the government has yet to succeed in elevating judges of its choice from the Lahore High Court.
A fresh debate has now sparked over whether the scales have tipped in the government's favour if a full court is constituted to hear challenges to the 26th Amendment. Four Supreme Court judges had urged CJP Afridi to put the JCP meeting on hold until a verdict was delivered on petitions challenging the amendment.
A 'dangerous coalition'
Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar warned of a growing nexus between the executive and judiciary.
"We are witnessing a dangerous coalition between the executive and judiciary, boldly undermining the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan," he added.
He pointed out that regardless of the government's lack of constitutional, democratic and moral legitimacy, it has continued its efforts to bring the judiciary under its control.
He noted that the JCP, now an instrument of the government, has become little more than a tool in the hands of the ruling authorities.
"Its recent appointments to the high court and Supreme Court mark the erosion of judicial independence, signalling a grave threat to the integrity of our legal system."
However, he noted that the overt assault on the judiciary will not go unchallenged.
"Lawyers, the public, and independent media have already expressed their outrage, standing firm against such a blatant encroachment."
"Constitutional guarantees and Pakistan's international commitments to uphold judicial independence have been disregarded. The loss of judicial autonomy directly undermines democracy and the rule of law."
Expressing deep concern over judicial complicity, he said, "Our judiciary, with its tumultuous history, has hit a new low. It is all the more tragic that some members of the judiciary, having learned nothing from past mistakes, are complicit in this erosion of their own institution."
Highlighting the gravity of the situation, he concluded, "In a country already grappling with numerous crises, this new crisis is both reckless and destructive. It is a grave error – one that will have lasting repercussions for Pakistan's future".

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah becomes acting CJP in rare Eid day ceremony
Listen to article Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took oath as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan on Saturday, in an unprecedented ceremony held on Eid day at the Supreme Court's Lahore Registry. The oath was administered by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, marking a rare event where the swearing-in of the country's top judicial office took place outside the federal capital and on a public holiday. The ceremony was attended by Supreme Court judges Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, along with several senior members of the legal fraternity, was also present. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will serve as Acting Chief Justice until June 10, during the absence of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Justice Isa is expected to resume his duties upon his return next week.


Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.


Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Only 14% MNAs attend all sittings of 16th NA session
Two supplementary resolutions were adopted by the house which were about paying tributes to the sacrifices of the armed forces on Defence Day and condemning terrorism in Quetta and Mardan. PHOTO: FAFEN The 16th session of the National Assembly that spanned over 13 sittings between May 5 and 22, 2025, saw only 14% members making 100% attendance, while 9% of the members were absent during the entire session, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) said in its report on Thursday. Fafen is a civil society network focused on strengthening democracy. It said in its latest report that consistent with the previous sessions, female attendance was generally higher than that of their male counterparts during the session last month. "The highest attendance was recorded during the first sitting, with 237 members (76%) present. During this sitting, the House suspended its regular agenda to discuss the recent Pakistan-India conflict," the report said. The lowest attendance was recorded during the last sitting, with 174 members (55%) present. This sitting was initially adjourned after just 13 minutes because of the lack of quorum. The House reconvened after 15 minutes and passed The Off the Grid (Captive Power Plants) Levy Bill, 2025. Fafen said that 150 members of the National Assembly (MNAs) skipped sittings without advance leave request; 118 (44%) submitted a leave application, including 25 (21%) in advance and 37 (31%) applied ex-post facto after returning from their leave. It added that 268 members (86%) missed at least one sitting during the current session. The report said that 16 female MNAs, including 14 on reserved seats, attended all the sittings, while five female MNAs, including two on the reserved seats, recorded zero attendance. Region-wise, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Islamabad Capital Territory lawmakers recorded the highest percentage of MNAs attending more than half of the sittings, it said, adding that majority of lawmakers from the SIC, the PML-N, the JUI, and independents attended more than half of the sittings. A lack of ministerial presence weakened legislative oversight, Fafen said in the report. Among the 29 federal ministers, who were expected to be present during the Question Hour to respond to queries from lawmakers, only 15 (52%) were marked present during the sittings.