DAWN Editorials - 22th february2025

[faheemustad]

Rules for thee

IT was a year ago when, in the tumultuous aftermath of the 2024 elections, the state banned X. Today, it remains banned — for seemingly everyone except government officials, who continue to use the platform via VPNs. The ban represents not just a violation of constitutional rights, it is also an example of the phrase ‘rules for thee, not for me’ in action. The government’s justification has seen dramatic swings from ‘national security concerns’ to an admission by a ruling party member that the ban aims to control the PTI’s social media presence. This has exposed the political motivations behind what should be matters of public policy and free expression. Unfortunately, this is not our first foray into digital censorship. The YouTube ban of 2012-2016 is a painful reminder of how such restrictions hobble society’s advancement while failing to achieve stated objectives. That ban cost our creative industry millions in lost revenue, stifled digital literacy, and forced Pakistanis to seek technological workarounds — much as they do today with X.

The economic impact of the X ban extends far beyond its reportedly 4.5m local users. Small businesses have seen their digital reach curtailed. Journalists and academics find themselves cut off from global discourse. Tech startups, already struggling in a challenging economy, face another barrier to growth. Most concerning is the message this sends to the international community. As nations worldwide embrace digital transformation, Pakistan appears intent on retreating into digital isolation. This not only damages our reputation but also deters potential investors and partners who value digital freedom and transparency. The government’s suggestion that X might be restored after implementing new social media rules under Peca is cold comfort, given the already restrictive nature of our cyber laws. What Pakistan needs is not more digital restrictions, but an open digital ecosystem that serves all citizens, and not just those in power.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2025


Paying taxes

FINANCE Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb’s ‘hard talk’ at a retail business conference on Thursday was long overdue. While appreciating the retail sector’s substantial contribution to employment and GDP, he nevertheless took the retailers to task for their negligible tax contribution, warning them that the country could not afford yet another “boom-and-bust cycle”. “Every sector must contribute to taxes. The current burden on the salaried class and manufacturing sector is unsustainable,” he said, while urging the retailers to ‘formalise’ their businesses and contribute to national prosperity since the time for free rides was over.

Indeed, as minister, Mr Aurangzeb has been saying all the right things. But it is time for him to walk the talk. Appealing to the good sense of tax evaders will no longer do. The utter failure of the Federal Board of Revenue to meet the revenue target under the Tajir Dost scheme underlines the need for harsher measures to enforce the tax laws. Retailers are not the only tax dodgers. Those profiting from urban real estate and the ones in the agriculture supply chain, too, are paying only a fraction of what is due to the system in taxes. Making laws does not automatically increase tax compliance. Take the example of real estate. There are various federal and provincial levies on property transactions. However, not even a handful of people pay the exact amount that they are supposed to. Even the organised industry is not paying what it owes to the national exchequer in taxes. The tax gap in the textile industry, especially at the spinning stage, is estimated by the FBR to be Rs700bn. The increase in agriculture tax rates will not boost revenues from this sector; it will require strict enforcement, the use of technology and, of course, strong political will to enforce the amended law. After retailers, the minister must also pay a visit to his friends in the business of real estate, who are seeking amnesty for the realty sector to ‘grow the economy and create jobs’. It is time they also got a hard talk from him. More importantly, he needs to sit down and talk to his cabinet colleagues who are pushing for such moves to get premature growth for political and personal reasons. That would be the hardest part of his job but without reining in these elements in government, no reform effort can succeed.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2025


Judiciary in the dock

IT has now come to this: five judges versus the president, the federation, the Judicial Commission, the registrars of the Supreme Court and the high courts of Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan and Islamabad, and three of their fellow judges.

The five, who are “serving confirmed judges” of the Islamabad High Court, have formally challenged the manner in which three justices were recently transplanted to the IHC from other high courts, how the IHC’s seniority list was subsequently changed, and how far more senior, confirmed IHC judges were summarily replaced on important committees by the freshly transferred judges.


The petitioners have called on the apex court to exercise its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to hear their pleas, as they believe what happened at the IHC is tantamount to a “dismantling of the salient features of the Constitution”; specifically, “the independence of judiciary, separation of powers and federalism”. They seem to have made a strong case.

It may be recalled that the trouble at the IHC began last year when several judges formally raised the issue of routine meddling by security agencies in court affairs. The contents of their complaint, addressed to the then chief justice, Qazi Faez Isa, were corroborated by similar complaints made subsequently by other high courts as well. Unfortunately, the former chief justice never had the bandwidth to address these complaints, and the matter was not addressed.

Now, and especially after the 26th Amendment, a perception has been building up that all judges who are perceived as a ‘threat’ by the current regime are being systematically sidelined and ‘neutralised’ by being denied their due promotions and/ or deprived of any important administrative responsibilities they may have held.

The way things have played out in the SC and the IHC in recent months certainly seems to have lent considerable credibility to that perception.

It has been most disappointing to observe that the petitions against the 26th Amendment have not been taken up with the seriousness and urgency they ought to have attracted from the SC. The judiciary’s image as an independent and impartial arbiter has continued to deteriorate as a result.


This petition, if it is taken up, will at least compel various actors to place on the record legal justifications for various actions and decisions which have been publicly perceived as having deprived the judiciary in general, and the IHC in particular, of their institutional independence, autonomy and ability to function without fear or favour.

It must also be reiterated that it is only proper that petitions pertaining to the independence of the judiciary as an institution are heard by a full court so that there is no complaint regarding conflicts of interest. The institutional leadership cannot ignore the growing criticism forever.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2025