In one corner of the ring, former premier Nawaz Sharif would have you believe, is the big, bad government, scheming and planning against the judiciary; in the other corner is Mr Sharif himself, protecting the judiciary, ready to take a punch or two for the noble cause of rule of law. And this neat categorisation of where things lie vis-à-vis the judiciary certainly permeates into the minds of some from the legal fraternity as well; just the other day, the prime minister was heckled off the stage at a function of the Lahore bar association where the rabble-rousers were raising slogans in favour of the chief justice. Their political affiliations would be easy to guess.
This position is a far cry from the time of the attack on the Supreme Court in 1997, when activists of his party raided the building of the apex court. But things change, yes, and so do people. Mr Sharif’s post-exile, pro-democracy avatar, where he has been making all the right sounds regarding constitutionalism and civil-military relations is commendable. But is that a façade or merely a case of incomplete learning? Because his recent faux pas, the one about his intention to set up military courts in Sindh were he to come to power, reveal a lack of clarity on the many aspects of the rule of law in democracies. The statement was widely panned, not just by the political parties but the judiciary itself. Even the quarters whom it would have presumably aroused, chose to decline commenting on it.
Justice should not only be done, goes the adage, but be seen to be done. This would be impossible to do if the judiciary is seen to be politicised, at least by the ruling party. The judiciary has to dispel this impression through its words and actions. That will be difficult to do if it is constantly championed (unsolicited) by the opposition party in a manner that is adversarial to the government.
The government could also do its bit by stopping shuffling their feet when it comes to obeying the decisions of the court. The clauses about contempt of court might have been used unfairly in the past, penalising citizens for merely criticising court judgments. But a refusal to honour court directives actually is contemptuous regardless of how one slices it.
