Justice Qazi Faez Isa was sworn in as the 29th chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan earlier this week after several months of controversy stemming from the treatment meted out to him by his predecessor and “likeminded” judges. The tussle was made all the more controversial because it played out before a public that was aware of Isa’s standing as a learned judge of the superior judiciary. Prior to his elevation, he often penned articles on the Constitution, law, Islam and the environment, co-authoring Mass Media Laws and Regulations in Pakistan. His association with the law spans 45 years, and he worked as a practicing lawyer for 27 years until his elevation to the Balochistan High Court, of which he was appointed chief justice in 2009. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2014.
Justice Isa became fodder for Pakistani media in 2019 when President Arif Alvi filed a reference against him, alleging misconduct and non-disclosure of foreign assets. The reference was quashed a year later by seven judges of a 10-member bench—though they directed the Federal Board of Revenue to conduct an inquiry into the foreign assets of the judge’s family members. Following his ouster as prime minister, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan admitted his government had erred in filing the case against Isa. This admission came too little, too late, as the entire nation was witness to how Justice Isa’s wife, Sarina Isa, was humiliated by his “brother” judges. In a seeming rebuff, Isa took oath as CJP with his wife standing by him; a first in Pakistan’s history. But the damage was done, sowing the seeds of a rift within the judiciary that persists to this day.
During Justice Isa’s tenure under former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, he was rarely appointed to any benches hearing important cases, fueling speculation he had been sidelined. He sought to negate this impression by issuing a statement maintaining he had not tried to create any “separate group” within the Supreme Court. “Garnishing facts to create a controversial narrative is damaging to the institution,” he added. But his attempts are peacekeeping—while laudable—cannot erase the fact that he was brought under pressure of “removal” through the reference filed by Alvi at the urging of the PTI-led government. The fallout of that attempt marks a low point in the history of law in Pakistan, and would not be remembered with pride.