Kidnapping relatives and spying? Judges accuse Pakistan army of coercing the courts.
| Islamabad
Judges from the Islamabad High Court have penned an explosive letter alleging that Pakistan’s top spy agencies pressured them into giving decisions favorable to the country’s powerful military establishment.
Highlighting incidents of torture and abduction, the justices say they were forced to hear a case against former Prime Minister Imran Khan even after they had decided that it did not merit adjudication. Since the letter was published, the Supreme Court has initiated a case on the spy agencies’ judicial interference, and is expected to resume hearings later this month.
Why We Wrote This
At a pivotal moment for Pakistan, top justices are speaking out against military interference. Their courage – combined with a public still seething over what appeared to be brazenly rigged elections – could be a sign that the military’s grip is weakening.
Pakistan’s army has historically relied on the courts to legitimize its intervention in the political sphere, including direct military takeovers and the toppling of governments that had fallen foul of the military high command. The current standoff also comes amid mounting evidence that Pakistan’s elections were rigged at the behest of the military establishment, and presents yet another challenge to the institution’s hegemonic influence.
The letter “clearly lays out what we can call the ‘root of the root of the root’ of our issues,” says journalist Zebunnisa Burki, referring to the military’s political meddling. “It has turned whispers and closed-door discussions into an open complaint.”
Pakistan’s political crisis is deepening as the country’s powerful military establishment becomes embroiled in a tense standoff with the superior judiciary.
Last month, six of the Islamabad High Court’s eight justices wrote an explosive letter alleging that the country’s top spy agencies had used coercive tactics to pressure justices into giving favorable decisions. Highlighting incidents of torture and abduction at the hands of these agencies, the justices say they were forced to hear a case against former Prime Minister Imran Khan even after they had decided it did not meet the legal provisions necessary to merit adjudication.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has since initiated a case concerning the matter, asking bar associations and high courts across the country to submit proposals to counter interference in judicial affairs. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who made his reputation as an opponent of the military’s extraconstitutional meddling, has promised to join the front line in defending the judiciary’s independence.
Why We Wrote This
At a pivotal moment for Pakistan, top justices are speaking out against military interference. Their courage – combined with a public still seething over what appeared to be brazenly rigged elections – could be a sign that the military’s grip is weakening.
The Pakistan army has historically relied on the courts to legitimize its intervention in the political sphere. In the past, the courts have justified direct military takeovers and helped topple the governments of political leaders who had fallen foul of the military high command. Experts note that intelligence agencies also meddled in the judicial process when Mr. Khan was prime minister, before he fell out of favor with the military.
The current standoff comes amid mounting evidence that Pakistan’s elections were rigged at the behest of the military establishment, and presents yet another challenge to the institution’s hegemonic influence at a time when it needs a pliant judiciary to keep Mr. Khan behind bars.
“The Islamabad High Court judges’ letter is significant in how it clearly lays out what we can call the ‘root of the root of the root’ of our issues,” says journalist Zebunnisa Burki, referring to the military establishment’s political puppet mastering. “Is it unprecedented or surprising? Not as far as the content goes. ... But what the letter has done is that it has turned whispers and closed-door discussions into an open complaint.”
The signatories say that they and their families were targeted by operatives from the country’s premier intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, after the court questioned the admissibility of the Tyrian White case. This case sought to disqualify Mr. Khan from holding public office on the grounds that he had concealed the existence of his daughter, whose mother he was not married to, from his election documents. “One of the judges had to be admitted in a hospital due to high blood pressure caused by stress,” said the letter.
They also alleged that surveillance equipment was found in the private lodgings of one serving justice, and that the relative of another was picked up and tortured. The justices wrote that it was imperative to “determine whether there exists a continuing policy on part of the executive branch of the state, implemented by intelligence operatives ... to intimidate judges, under threat of coercion or blackmail, to engineer judicial outcomes in politically consequential matters.”
No government or military leader has publicly addressed the claims made in the letter, though one intelligence official reportedly described them as “frivolous” and “out of context.”
According to Abdul Moiz Jaferii, a lawyer and political commentator, this document does not necessarily amount to an open rebellion. He points out that without a compliant judiciary, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz would not be leading the government today, since it came in second in the general election even with the support of the military via alleged vote-rigging. “The letter is more about the [military] establishment breaking the camel’s back by exerting more pressure than could be borne,” he says.
The judges’ defiance has nevertheless added to the pressure on the Pakistan army, whose reputation has suffered a great deal after the Feb. 8 election, when it was accused of manipulating the results to prevent candidates affiliated with Mr. Khan’s political party from forming the government.
A report released Tuesday by the Free and Fair Election Network further alleged that during by-elections held on April 21, poll-watchers were barred from observing the count in 19 polling stations. “The establishment has sought to get itself back on the front foot after many months of turbulence,” says Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute. “These allegations will galvanize those critics that have been accusing it of overreach.”
All eyes are now on the Supreme Court, which is expected to resume hearing the case on judicial interference at the end of this month. “Any wishy-washy middle ground position by the court, and we will be in more trouble than we started with,” says Mr. Jaferii.
But some argue that the judges’ defiance will have far-reaching consequences for the military, regardless of the case’s outcome. That is the view of Ms. Burki, the journalist, who says that the letter represents an indictment of the entire system.
“The genie cannot possibly be sealed back into the bottle once it has been typed out, printed, and now adjudicated, too,” she says. “The more things become public, the less fear there remains.”
