As Justice Yahya Afridi prepares to take over as the next Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), the legal community finds itself sharply divided, as concerns grow over the 26th constitutional amendment and its potential impact on the country’s judicial system.
The contentious legislation grants a special parliamentary committee the authority to appoint the CJP from a panel of three senior-most judges. Prior to its enactment, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah would have become the CJP by virtue of his seniority; after, Justice Afridi, who was third in line, superseded him.
Despite the controversy surrounding the amendment, Justice Afridi’s appointment itself has attracted little criticism. By all accounts, Afridi is a competent and unbiased jurist with an impressive career spanning decades. Upon his arrival to the Supreme Court after his notification as the next CJP, Afridi was reportedly congratulated by his peers, including outgoing CJP Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Shah, who once shared a legal practice with him. However, Shah would not attend Afridi’s oath-taking, as he has left the country to perform Umrah with his family.
Within the legal community, there is both support and opposition to Afridi’s appointment. Ahsan Bhoon, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has welcomed the news, praising Justice Afridi as an undisputed and impartial judge. Similarly, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) President Shahzad Shaukat has emphasized that Afridi’s appointment followed the Constitution, and should be seen as a positive step forward for the judiciary.
In the opposing camp, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator Hamid Khan criticized the appointment during a press conference at the Lahore High Court Bar Association. Claiming the judiciary was being “punished” for past decisions, such as the disqualification of former prime ministers Yousaf Raza Gilani and Nawaz Sharif, he alleged the 26th Amendment sought to sow division within the judiciary and undermine its independence. He urged Justice Afridi to decline the position, warning that accepting it could damage his reputation.
Some lawyers, however, have gone further, likening the 26th constitutional amendment to a form of “martial law.” Ishtiaq A. Khan, a member of the PBC, accused the government of trying to control the judiciary through political means. The Balochistan Bar Council also issued a statement calling on Justice Afridi to refuse the role and support Justice Shah on the basis of seniority.
The deep divisions within the legal community following the appointment of Justice Afridi could also pose threats to the government in the days to come. Critics of the 26th constitutional amendment have already warned of a new “lawyers’ movement” on the pattern of the one last seen after then-president Pervez Musharraf deposed then-CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry. The ruling coalition, however, sees little chance of this occurring, noting the divisions within the legal fraternity would make it difficult to launch a mass movement. To ensure the rule of law is sustained, however, the country’s rulers would be well-served to work toward appeasement rather than risk the issue spiraling into a crisis they are ill-equipped to tackle.