The interference conundrum

‘Interference’ is a word not new to Pakistan. In fact, it may just be the only constant in our politics. But it is this quite precedented and familiar-to-most ‘interference’ that is once again the talk of the town. While interventions and institutional interference have been questioned over the years – mostly by out-of-favour politicians or brave activists – this time around it is the judiciary itself that has opened this box. Hearing the suo-motu case regarding the allegations levelled by senior judges of the Islamabad High Court (HC) against spy agencies for meddling in juridical matters, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday said ‘others’ would stay powerful until parliament strengthened itself. The CJP also spoke about the nature of ‘interference’ and how it can come from many quarters: intelligence agencies, colleagues, family member(s). However, the CJP added that “a judge’s judgment and order shows, speaks, shouts how much interference there is or isn’t; how much independence there is or isn’t”.

It isn’t just the IHC judges who have talked about interference by the security agencies, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Lahore High Court (LHC) have also complained about this. In its response submitted to the Supreme Court, the PHC said that when some judges were directly approached by intelligence agency members seeking favours in political cases and they decided those cases impartially, “they received life threats through non-state actors from the neighbouring country, Afghanistan”. The LHC in its response said that “interference of agencies/executive in the independence of judiciary is an open secret”. The Balochistan High Court in its reply ended with a quote by Martin Luther King Jr, “In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends”. The Sindh High Court also submitted its response and like other high courts, gave its input on proposals and recommendations regarding the future course of action.

This is an important matter – and it goes to the heart of justice, rule of law, democracy. A case like this being live-streamed from the top court is possibly one of the best outcomes of trials being shown live. What is also heartening to see is that all courts are united in their stance, unlike the time when former Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was fighting his case all on his own. What is important now though is that interference of all kinds – by the executive, by institutions, or by anyone else – in judicial matters ends now. Judges are here to dispense justice and any kind of harassment impacts their verdicts. Some judges may be able to withstand the pressures while others may not – but the point here is that no judge should be harassed. Justice must be done without any fear of consequences. This also means that judges cannot be partisan, whether due to interference from their peers, family member(s), or due to their personal likes and dislikes. It is on the judiciary to ensure that. The SC is hearing a case that will impact the future of the judiciary so we hope that this historic case will lead to proper guidelines and a code of conduct for the judiciary as well so they can use it if they are ever approached by anyone in a threatening manner. An independent judiciary is the lifeline of any democracy. And as CJP Qazi Faez Isa said, parliament has to strengthen itself so that ‘others’ don’t remain powerful. This is a message for our political parties and parliamentarians: rather than fighting between themselves, they should be united like the judiciary is now and put up a fight against the ‘others’ to protect democracy.