Lahore High Court (LHC) Justice Shahid Karim last month directed the Prime Minister’s Office to bar the country’s intelligence agencies from approaching any judge or staff of high courts and subordinate courts amidst ongoing concerns from several quarters of interference in judicial matters to secure desired verdicts. The order was issued on a suo motu notice taken by former LHC chief justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan on a complaint filed by the judge of an Anti-Terrorism Court in Sargohda, wherein he had alleged that officials of a spy agency—ostensibly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)—was threatening him and his family. In his observations, the former LHC CJ had noted that the submission of the ATC judge “shows that prima facie the state departments have been causing serious threats/harassment to the courts and their staff and thus creating hurdles in the court process.”
This followed a letter sent to the Supreme Judicial Council by six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), wherein they alleged interference by the ISI “in judicial matters,” citing examples of pressure through the abduction and torture of relatives and secret surveillance of their residences. Authored by Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, the letter also questioned the existence of a state policy aimed at intimidating and coercing judges.
There is a long history of Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus, particularly the ISI, being accused of meddling in the country’s domestic politics, with some critics describing it as a “state within the state.” These same critics lament that the ISI is accountable to neither the civilian nor the military leadership of the country, enjoying a degree of carte blanche surpassing any other institution in the country. Such unaccountable behavior is, without a doubt, anathema in a modern democracy. With multiple judges finally taking a stand, however, it is hoped the state would look inward and adopt changes to investigation and espionage regimes to ensure the rule of law is not only implemented, but also seen to be implemented.