DAWN Editorials - 30th January 2025
Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:53 pm
Court in crisis
THE Supreme Court faces a crisis of legitimacy. A growing chorus within the legal community has been calling for challenges to the 26th Amendment to be heard by a full court, but the appeal has fallen on deaf ears.
There is increasing frustration over the complications created by the law, especially as it has begun interfering with the independent functioning of the judiciary. The growing public perception is that the judiciary has been hijacked by other branches of the state, with judges being appointed to senior positions not on the basis of individual merit but on what ‘services’ they may be able to offer in return for their appointments.
While it would be unfair to believe such criticisms without supporting evidence, the fact remains that there has been very little effort on the part of the institution and its leadership to address such concerns in good faith.
Recent remarks by one of the senior-most judges of the Islamabad High Court have underlined the fact that criticism of the 26th Amendment is not simply political in nature.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, senior puisne judge of the Islamabad High Court, on Tuesday lent his support to the caucus calling for a full court to hear the 26th Amendment challenges. He seemed convinced the amendment was moved in response to a “letter”, ostensibly the one written by six justices of the IHC detailing brazen meddling in court affairs. Many others seem to share very similar views.
Meanwhile, that same day, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court set aside a ruling issued by a regular bench regarding the administrative jurisdiction of the committees that oversee case assignments.
The decision prompted a recusal from one of the judges of the constitutional bench, who left with a note that the court should “preserve and safeguard the sanctity of judicial orders”.
Clearly, there is much unrest within the superior judiciary over the 26th Amendment and its resultant complications and controversies. There is force in the position taken by many fair-minded individuals within the legal community that the challenges against the amendment must be heard by all justices of the Supreme Court so that they are conclusively decided.
The judges assigned to one bench do not become superior in their legal acumen compared to those assigned to other benches merely by virtue of their appointment. Therefore, there is no reason why only some should decide the challenges and others should not.
There are also several past precedents of a full court hearing challenges to constitutional amendments to support this demand. There is no denying that the integrity and independence of the present Supreme Court seem to be in doubt, even among those within the judiciary. It seems prudent to settle all concerns fairly instead of allowing them to fester.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025
Death blow
JOURNALISTS took to the streets in protest; human rights groups warned against the dangers; and digital rights experts cried themselves hoarse. But it all fell on deaf ears.
And now, after the president’s assent, the Peca amendments have become law, dealing democracy what might as well be termed a death blow. The haste with which this has occurred is astounding. Civil society pleaded for consultations, for a pause, for a moment of reflection. They were met with silence. Now, as the ink dries on this draconian law, the chilling effect on free expression is already setting in. The new law introduces Section 26(A), criminalising so-called fake news — a term left deliberately vague — subjecting individuals to up to three years in prison or fines of up to Rs2m. But what constitutes fake news? Who decides what information is “likely to cause fear, panic, or unrest”? As history has repeatedly shown, such ambiguities do not lend themselves to fair application. The PPP’s support for the legislation marks a spectacular ideological somersault that would score perfect tens in any gymnastics competition. Having once championed press freedom, the party now appears to believe that the best way to protect democracy is to strangle it. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar’s distinction between “working journalists” and citizens who “just pull out their phones” suggests a touching nostalgia for an era when news travelled by horseback.
The government’s claims that these amendments are meant to protect citizens hardly sound sincere. In fact, the establishment of a new National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority makes clear its true intent: unprecedented control over Pakistan’s digital space. This law extends beyond curtailing dissent — it seeks to erase it altogether. It should never have been passed. The government had an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue, to strengthen media regulations through fair and transparent mechanisms, and to counter disinformation without trampling on fundamental rights. Instead, it chose coercion over consultation. Pakistan’s journalists, digital activists, and ordinary citizens must now prepare for a long battle against a law designed to silence them. The question is: will the courts, the last line of defence for civil liberties, stand up to this legislative overreach? The answer may well determine the future of free speech in the country.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025
Enhanced inclusivity
TWO fresh initiatives involving new features in people’s CNICs should help enhance inclusivity for special persons, along with promoting organ donation amongst the public. Nadra has recently amended its rules to allow for a special wheelchair logo for persons with disabilities to be displayed on their CNICs; these cards will have lifetime validity. Moreover, citizens who wish to donate their organs will now have a special donor logo printed on their identity cards. The prime minister had last year announced the latter initiative to promote organ donation, and thereby save lives. Those wishing to avail these new services will be able to do so upon applying for fresh CNICs, or renewing their cards.
With regard to PWDs, having CNICs with lifetime validity will save special persons from the trouble of having to visit Nadra centres for renewal. In a similar vein, the Punjab government last year launched the Himmat Card, which provides those PWDs who cannot work with financial support. These initiatives are welcome, but the state should also keep in mind that it needs to adapt infrastructure so that it is accessible to PWDs, and allows them to live their lives independently, and with dignity. For example, public transport infrastructure and vehicles should be PWD-friendly, while buildings also need to have ramps, elevators, etc, in place for special persons. As for the organ donor logo on CNICs, this initiative should be promoted by lawmakers, celebrities, influencers, and others, in order to increase the trend of deceased organ donation. As it is, there is considerable deficit in the legal demand and supply of organs, leading to transplant rackets. Moreover, a person’s blood type should also be mentioned on the CNIC; this can help first responders save lives in emergency situations. These are progressive moves to further integrate PWDs into national life, and promote organ donation, and need to be accompanied by complementary measures by the state.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025
THE Supreme Court faces a crisis of legitimacy. A growing chorus within the legal community has been calling for challenges to the 26th Amendment to be heard by a full court, but the appeal has fallen on deaf ears.
There is increasing frustration over the complications created by the law, especially as it has begun interfering with the independent functioning of the judiciary. The growing public perception is that the judiciary has been hijacked by other branches of the state, with judges being appointed to senior positions not on the basis of individual merit but on what ‘services’ they may be able to offer in return for their appointments.
While it would be unfair to believe such criticisms without supporting evidence, the fact remains that there has been very little effort on the part of the institution and its leadership to address such concerns in good faith.
Recent remarks by one of the senior-most judges of the Islamabad High Court have underlined the fact that criticism of the 26th Amendment is not simply political in nature.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, senior puisne judge of the Islamabad High Court, on Tuesday lent his support to the caucus calling for a full court to hear the 26th Amendment challenges. He seemed convinced the amendment was moved in response to a “letter”, ostensibly the one written by six justices of the IHC detailing brazen meddling in court affairs. Many others seem to share very similar views.
Meanwhile, that same day, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court set aside a ruling issued by a regular bench regarding the administrative jurisdiction of the committees that oversee case assignments.
The decision prompted a recusal from one of the judges of the constitutional bench, who left with a note that the court should “preserve and safeguard the sanctity of judicial orders”.
Clearly, there is much unrest within the superior judiciary over the 26th Amendment and its resultant complications and controversies. There is force in the position taken by many fair-minded individuals within the legal community that the challenges against the amendment must be heard by all justices of the Supreme Court so that they are conclusively decided.
The judges assigned to one bench do not become superior in their legal acumen compared to those assigned to other benches merely by virtue of their appointment. Therefore, there is no reason why only some should decide the challenges and others should not.
There are also several past precedents of a full court hearing challenges to constitutional amendments to support this demand. There is no denying that the integrity and independence of the present Supreme Court seem to be in doubt, even among those within the judiciary. It seems prudent to settle all concerns fairly instead of allowing them to fester.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025
Death blow
JOURNALISTS took to the streets in protest; human rights groups warned against the dangers; and digital rights experts cried themselves hoarse. But it all fell on deaf ears.
And now, after the president’s assent, the Peca amendments have become law, dealing democracy what might as well be termed a death blow. The haste with which this has occurred is astounding. Civil society pleaded for consultations, for a pause, for a moment of reflection. They were met with silence. Now, as the ink dries on this draconian law, the chilling effect on free expression is already setting in. The new law introduces Section 26(A), criminalising so-called fake news — a term left deliberately vague — subjecting individuals to up to three years in prison or fines of up to Rs2m. But what constitutes fake news? Who decides what information is “likely to cause fear, panic, or unrest”? As history has repeatedly shown, such ambiguities do not lend themselves to fair application. The PPP’s support for the legislation marks a spectacular ideological somersault that would score perfect tens in any gymnastics competition. Having once championed press freedom, the party now appears to believe that the best way to protect democracy is to strangle it. Information Minister Attaullah Tarar’s distinction between “working journalists” and citizens who “just pull out their phones” suggests a touching nostalgia for an era when news travelled by horseback.
The government’s claims that these amendments are meant to protect citizens hardly sound sincere. In fact, the establishment of a new National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency and the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority makes clear its true intent: unprecedented control over Pakistan’s digital space. This law extends beyond curtailing dissent — it seeks to erase it altogether. It should never have been passed. The government had an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue, to strengthen media regulations through fair and transparent mechanisms, and to counter disinformation without trampling on fundamental rights. Instead, it chose coercion over consultation. Pakistan’s journalists, digital activists, and ordinary citizens must now prepare for a long battle against a law designed to silence them. The question is: will the courts, the last line of defence for civil liberties, stand up to this legislative overreach? The answer may well determine the future of free speech in the country.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025
Enhanced inclusivity
TWO fresh initiatives involving new features in people’s CNICs should help enhance inclusivity for special persons, along with promoting organ donation amongst the public. Nadra has recently amended its rules to allow for a special wheelchair logo for persons with disabilities to be displayed on their CNICs; these cards will have lifetime validity. Moreover, citizens who wish to donate their organs will now have a special donor logo printed on their identity cards. The prime minister had last year announced the latter initiative to promote organ donation, and thereby save lives. Those wishing to avail these new services will be able to do so upon applying for fresh CNICs, or renewing their cards.
With regard to PWDs, having CNICs with lifetime validity will save special persons from the trouble of having to visit Nadra centres for renewal. In a similar vein, the Punjab government last year launched the Himmat Card, which provides those PWDs who cannot work with financial support. These initiatives are welcome, but the state should also keep in mind that it needs to adapt infrastructure so that it is accessible to PWDs, and allows them to live their lives independently, and with dignity. For example, public transport infrastructure and vehicles should be PWD-friendly, while buildings also need to have ramps, elevators, etc, in place for special persons. As for the organ donor logo on CNICs, this initiative should be promoted by lawmakers, celebrities, influencers, and others, in order to increase the trend of deceased organ donation. As it is, there is considerable deficit in the legal demand and supply of organs, leading to transplant rackets. Moreover, a person’s blood type should also be mentioned on the CNIC; this can help first responders save lives in emergency situations. These are progressive moves to further integrate PWDs into national life, and promote organ donation, and need to be accompanied by complementary measures by the state.
Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025