Why is the Pakistan judiciary in crisis mode?

Pakistan’s top court is in crisis. Two Supreme Court judges including one who was in line to be Chief Justice of Pakistan resigned on Wednesday and Thursday. The developments come in the backdrop of Pakistan preparing to hold its general elections in February. But what happened? And what do we know about their resignations? Let’s take a closer look: What happened? Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the second most senior judge on the Pakistan Supreme Court, stepped down on Thursday. Ahsan was slated to be the next Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court.

As per The Print, Ahsan was to take over from Qazi Faez Isa who is set to retire in October.

Ahsan, in his resignation letter to President Arif Alvi, said he no longer wished to remain in his position. “Therefore, I, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, resign as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in terms of Article 206(1) of the Constitution with immediate effect,” Ahsan wrote. He added that he had the honour and privilege of serving as a Judge of the Lahore High Court, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court and a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Ahsan’s resignation came on the heels of top court judge Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi stepping down on Wednesday. [caption id=“attachment_13606812” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Justice Ijazul Ahsan said said he no longer wished to remain in his position. News18[/caption] On Thursday, President Alvi accepted Justice Naqvi’s resignation. According to The Tribune, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah will now take over as Pakistan’s chief justice. What do we know about their resignations? We don’t know the reason behind the resignations. But speculation is rife. As per The Tribune, the Pakistani Supreme Court has been divided into two camps since a presidential reference was filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa in May 2019. Naqvi who was facing a Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) inquiry over allegations of misconduct and decided to step down. As per Dawn, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea from Naqvi to halt proceedings.

Naqvi is under the scanner for having wealth beyond his means.

Interestingly, Justice Ahsan was also part of the five-member SJC but had refused to join other members of the council on 22 November, 2023, in the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice to Justice Naqvi. As per Dawn, Ahsan on Tuesday said he was sorrowful about “the hasty proceedings.” He added that debate and discussion were “non-existent” during council proceedings. “Thus Nov 22, 2023 proceedings when the second show-cause notice was issued against Justice Naqvi were completely devoid of any discussion or deliberation whatsoever,” Ahsan wrote. Ahsan was also part of the five-member bench that had disqualified former premier Nawaz Sharif in the high-profile Panamagate case in 2017. He was appointed as the monitoring judge to supervise and monitor the implementation of the Panamagate case verdict that resulted in conviction of Sharif in two cases of corruption. The development also comes in the aftermath of the apex court voiding the lifetime ban on Sharif, as per The Print. As per The Tribune, Ahsan was close to three former Supreme Court Justices Saqib Nisar, Gulzar Ahmed, and Umar Ata Bandial. He is also considered by some to be a pro-PTI judge. Ahsan was seemingly miffed at the workings of the apex court after retirement of Bandial. He spoke against live streaming  proceedings and wrote a dissent from the majority opinion on the adoption of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. Ahsan also was against a committee formed to give advice with regard to changing the procedure to appoint higher court judges. The newspaper said a misconduct complaint against Ahsan was thought to be looming. Ahsan also gave some controversial and high-profile verdicts. ‘Sad day for Supreme Court’ Speaking to Dawn, lawyer Rida Hosain said Ahsan was part of the bench that struck down military trials of civilians as “unconstitutional.” “The decision was historic, brave, and a victory for fundamental rights,” she said. She also pointed out that Ahsan was on the bench that ordered provincial polls to be held on time. “In both cases, in the face of immense pressure, the Supreme Court including Justice Ahsan did its job.” “Differences with certain decisions of Justice Ahsan notwithstanding, today is a sad day for our Supreme Court,” she said. Abdul Moiz Jaferii, another lawyer, said while Naqvi’s resignation was expected Justice Ahsan’s was not. “He (Naqvi) had cut a deal with the last set of people who ran Pakistan and had benefitted both in terms of power and material.” He added that the new “big boys didn’t like his past loyalties which he stuck to, so the charges magically appeared with evidence like they had against Justice Isa.” Jaferii said Naqvi the charges against Naqvi are serious. “His audio leaks with political figures, him being talked about between Parvez Elahi and his lawyer were all clear signs of how people were out to get him.”

Jaferii, speaking on Ahsan’s resignation, said there is “much more here than met the eye”.

More from Explainers

What happened during Trump's call with Zelenskyy and European leaders? Trump-Putin summit: Why Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867

“The simplest explanation is that Justice Ahsan couldn’t handle the heat. There was something he was afraid would come up, which he had until now been able to manage because he had someone more senior than himself to hide behind.” The Tribune quoted advocate Faisal Siddiqi as saying a purge in the apex court is underway. “This is, in essence, PCO [Provisional Constitutional Order] by other means. The ultimate objective is to silence dissenting judicial voices. Have no doubt, no judge is safe now,” Siddiqi added. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz information secretary Marriyum Aurangzeb questioned the resignation of Justices Ahsan and Naqvi. “Do they believe that resigning from the highest court will absolve them of injustices done by them?” Aurangzeb said. He alleged that the two judges had “done injustice” to the people of the country and pointed out that if an elected prime minister could undergo scrutiny, it was only fair for any individual, including a Supreme Court judge, to face accountability. With inputs from agencies