[Mr. Sharif and his allies have repeatedly accused the court of working hand in glove with the country’s powerful military to have him removed, a claim both the military and the justices deny, and of exercising continued bias in cases involving the governing party and its officials.]
By Salman Masood
 |
|
The
Supreme Court in Islamabad, Pakistan. Supporters of the leading political party
accuse
the judiciary of acting on behalf of the
military, which has long held the levers of
power
in Pakistan. Credit Anjum Naveed/Associated Press
|
ISLAMABAD,
Pakistan — On his way to
becoming Pakistan’s top judge, Mian Saqib Nisar built a reputation as a highly
regarded jurist known for his expertise in constitutional law and his
disapproval of judicial overreach.
Recently, though, Chief Justice Nisar of the
Supreme Court has become something of an activist: He conducted a personal
inspection of a Lahore hospital during a health-related case, told the father
of a young murder victim to call him directly if problems arose with the police
investigation and strongly criticized the government for its inability to stop
human trafficking in Punjab Province.
Each case, along with a number of others
recently taken up by the court, has cast the governing party, the Pakistan
Muslim League-Nawaz, as corrupt or ineffectual. Whether that is the product of
a politically motivated effort to tarnish the party, as the court’s critics say,
or the vigorous exercise of justice in a long-sclerotic system has become a
matter of considerable debate.
But the spurt of activity has undoubtedly
come at a time of escalating — and direct — confrontation between the country’s
top judicial body and its leading political party, a clash that traces to the
court’s contentious ouster of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a corruption case
last year.
Mr. Sharif and his allies have repeatedly
accused the court of working hand in glove with the country’s powerful military
to have him removed, a claim both the military and the justices deny, and of
exercising continued bias in cases involving the governing party and its
officials.
“This is not justice but a joke,” Mr. Sharif
said in Lahore during one of several recent, fiery speeches that have been
critical of the court.
Justice Nisar, 64, who became chief at the
end of 2016, defended the court’s choice of cases.
“We are being accused of accepting some
cases, of being a part of an anti-democracy campaign, but the judges must not
come under any pressure,” Justice Nisar said in a speech. The judiciary, he
said, should not let “anyone suffer from injustice.”
The Supreme Court and lower courts have
responded to speech critical of the judiciary by pursuing a number of contempt
citations.
A governing party senator, Nehal Hashmi, was
found guilty of contempt-of-court charges this month and sentenced to a month
in jail. He had been accused of threatening violence against a panel set up by
the Supreme Court to further investigate corruption allegations against Mr.
Sharif. “Those who are seeking our accountability, listen with open ears: We
will not spare you,” Mr. Hashmi told a party gathering, comments for which he
later apologized.
Two government ministers have also been
summoned to appear before the Supreme Court in contempt cases, and lower courts
have issued contempt summonses to Mr. Sharif and his daughter and political
heir, Maryam Nawaz, because of speeches critical of the judiciary.
Some analysts say the political motives in
the clash belong primarily to Mr. Sharif and his allies.
“From the moment Sharif was disqualified in
July 2017, he has consistently baited the judiciary, knowing that the only
route to renewal for him is in successfully tainting the judiciary,” said
Mosharraf Zaidi, a political analyst and newspaper columnist. “And the only way
for the judiciary to be tainted is to demonstrably seem like it has an agenda
outside of dispensing justice.”
Mr. Sharif and his allies have sought to tie
the court’s agenda to the military’s, a link that has historical resonance. Mr.
Sharif had long been at odds with the military, asserting that elected
officials should take the lead in formulating foreign and security policy. His
push for treason proceedings against a former dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
who had toppled Mr. Sharif’s previous government in 1999, also rankled the
military.
Other analysts fault the court. “The judicial
activism is destroying the image of the judiciary and politicizing it more,”
said Matiullah Jan, a journalist and talk-show host who covers the Supreme Court.
“It is unfortunate that both army and the
judiciary are openly competing with the political government for popularity,”
Mr. Jan added. “Both competitors are trying to derive their authority from the
public rather than the Constitution and law.”
The judiciary in Pakistan has a history of
being compliant to the military, giving it constitutional cover for
undemocratic acts. But in 2007, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, a maverick,
strong-willed chief justice, locked horns with Mr. Musharraf, igniting the grass-roots
Lawyers’ Movement that helped lead to his resignation.
Mr. Chaudhry left a mixed legacy, though,
unable to make lasting reforms and accused of self-aggrandizement. Subsequent
chiefs have also failed to make a dent in the problems: The Supreme Court
itself has a backlog of more than 38,000 cases, a symptom of a strained
national system in which cases can drag on for decades.
Critics say that while Justice Nisar has been
quick to take up cases related to the governing party and malfeasance by
civilian authorities, he has sidestepped more delicate issues like the
intelligence agencies’ practices of enforced disappearances, intimidation and
harassment of the military’s critics.
Last month, Justice Nisar decided to
re-examine the case of Husain Haqqani, an outspoken critic of the military who
failed to return from abroad for a judicial inquiry into charges of improperly
seeking American assistance to head off a possible coup. Mr. Haqqani, citing
security threats, has refused to return from the United States, which has no
extradition treaty with Pakistan.
The chief justice has, however, shown no sign
of pushing for the return of Mr. Musharraf, who fled the country in the middle
of his trial on treason charges. (In 2016, Mr. Musharraf acknowledged that a
former army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, helped to influence the courts so that
he could leave the country.)
For now, it seems that the clashes between
the judiciary and Mr. Sharif’s party may only intensify.
“There is an air of confrontation.” said Ibn
Abdur Rehman, 88, a leading human rights defender who suggests the court has
overreached at times. “The judges should not start trying to solve the problems
themselves.”
When Mr. Rehman appeared to give expert
testimony recently before the Supreme Court, Justice Nisar said he wished he
could invite the longtime activist to have a cup of tea.
“Instead of an invitation for tea,” Mr.
Rehman responded in a low voice, “it is better to provide justice.”