EDITORIAL: With the government having, for now, backed down from its bid to pass the much-hyped constitutional package – that could fundamentally transform the working of the judiciary – after failing to secure vital backing from the JUI-F, the overarching message that its antics over the weekend communicated was that of its complete disregard for the principles of openness and transparency.
It goes without saying that when attempts are being made to pass an amendment to the country’s Constitution, having profound implications for the rule of law and the judiciary’s future, the least one expects is for there to be not just a robust parliamentary debate, but also wider public discussion within civil society, media and in legal circles.
Instead, even members of the ruling coalition initially appeared clueless when faced with media inquiries about the contents of the proposed amendment.
While Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar later stated in the National Assembly that the government would seek to build consensus on the matter, and that dialogue on the package has been initiated with parliamentary parties, one wonders what was stopping the ruling coalition from doing just that in the first place.
The exact components of the proposed legislation remained shrouded in secrecy for much of the weekend, instigating considerable uncertainty, and debates in the media centred not on its contents, but whether the government would be able to muster the numbers required to pass it in parliament.
It is clear that the rulers cared little about the extreme polarisation engendered by their actions, and the impact this could have on an economy already reeling under instability, a volatile political climate and diminished investor confidence.
The desperate pyrotechnics employed to conjure up the requisite support while keeping the contents of the proposed amendment essentially veiled, only served to solidify the impression that the government had something to hide.
And going by the details of the package that have since come to light, it appears that the concerns regarding the lack of transparency were well-founded.
While government lawmakers insist that the draft circulating in the media is not the final document, even as an initial version, it raises apprehensions about the intent and consequences of the proposed law as it raises justified concerns related to separation of powers, independence of the judiciary and limiting the executive’s ingress into appointments and transfers of judges.
The proposal to form a new constitutional court to hear petitions of a constitutional nature as well as appeals from writ petitions passed by high courts, and eliminating the Supreme Court’s right to hear such matters is a cause of concern, given that appointment of judges to the new court will be open to significant influence by the government of the day.
One wonders how those who complain of the judiciary being politicised can justify the ruling dispensation of having such huge influence in matter of judicial appointments.
Furthermore, how do those citing the issue of the huge backlog of cases in our court system as a justification for establishing a separate constitutional court imagine this problem could be resolved by adding yet another layer to the judicial order?
Moreover, how can the independence of the judiciary be ensured when, as envisaged under the package, high court judges will forever serve under the threat of being transferred without their consent, especially in case the powers that be develop issues with the way they are handling certain cases? These are just some of the more troubling aspects of the constitutional package, and one hopes that the government will even now have the good sense to see their potential detrimental impact. It must address the concerns that have been raised in good faith and do away with any measures that could undermine judicial independence and public trust in the legal system.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments