Ephedrine verdict

Just days before the general election, a narcotics court in Rawalpindi handed down a controversial verdict by sentencing the PML-N’s Hanif Abbasi to life imprisonment. The charge against him stems from an eight-year-old case involving ephedrine. The other seven accused were acquitted on the basis of doubt. This extraordinary verdict, delivered in the middle of the night this past Saturday, has been criticised by many legal observers and media commentators. They have particularly pointed out that the narcotics court was rushed into a verdict by an arbitrary deadline set by the Lahore High Court to dispose of the case.

It is difficult for many to understand the haste with which the LHC demanded a verdict be delivered since the ephedrine case had been going through the court process for many years. That the deadline happened to be right before the elections has only led to people finding it more unusual and problematic. Abbasi will not be able to contest elections for the NA-60 seat where he was running against Sheikh Rashid; the election itself has also been postponed. That at least gives Abbasi the chance to appeal the verdict and perhaps run for the seat at a later date should he be cleared eventually. All this has led to the unfortunate effect of people wondering about the timing of the verdict coinciding with the general elections.

Politically speaking, Abbasi’s conviction is yet another blow to the PML-N. The party has steadily lost its most recognisable names to court verdicts and defections. All this has contributed to a sense that the momentum is with its rivals. There also needs to be some consideration of how the separate roles of the political class and judiciary are becoming enmeshed. The fate of the general elections has rested more on the decisions of the courts than ever before. Experts have pointed out that the effects of this will be felt by every party one way or the other. This is why many have criticised the judicialisation of politics. For now, Abbasi still has the right to appeal and that appeal should be heard in a more deliberate and exacting manner to ensure that justice is done – and seen to be done.