Was former Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif a victim of a political trial?  

It is indeed an irony that what Pakistan’s highest judiciary thinks is a moment of glory for itself, many in the same country and the world at large perceive as a moment of shame.

In three far-reaching judgements in the last nine months, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has acted in a manner that would normally be seen as a supreme assertion of judicial independence. It not only unseated a sitting prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in July last year on corruption charges but also barred him, in February this year, from leading any political party that would make him eligible for public office. Less than a week ago, the apex court of Pakistan made the ban permanent, rejecting pleas to make it a time-bound one.

The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar, in an address this week described these series of decisions as evidence of assertion of judicial independence. On the face of it, this is self-evident. Anywhere in the world, the judiciary unseating the incumbent chief executive of the country would have made a big splash. In Pakistan, where the judiciary has often been seen cringing before the executive, this assertion of independence seems to be a welcome departure from its pliant reputation.

But is it really so? Many have clear misgivings; they take support from the post-independent history of Pakistan. Out of the last 70 years of its history as a nation, Pakistan has been for almost half the time under military rule and the other half under what has been often described as corrupt, self-serving civilian leadership.

Look at some of the examples. When General Ayub Khan seized power in 1958, the Pakistan Supreme Court gave it the stamp of approval by enunciating the doctrine of revolutionary legality. When General Yahya Khan declared martial law in April 1969, the Supreme Court of Pakistan invented the doctrine of necessity to justify it.

When General Zia ul-Haq came to power overthrowing the civilian government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a military coup in July 1977, the Supreme Court of Pakistan hailed it as the need of the hour. When Pervez Musharraf’s coup d’état unseated Nawaz Sharif’s government in October 1999, Pakistan’s Supreme Court did not even choose to become a mute spectator; it openly embraced the military ruler as the only saviour of the country.

The history of Pakistan tells us that its judiciary has always openly embedded itself with the military; that its apex court has invariably succumbed to the whims of the dictators.

The current scenario is not an exact replica of 1958 or 1969, or 1977 or 1999. Unlike those times when the Supreme Court of Pakistan had kowtowed to an incoming military dictator and railed against the ousted civilian leadership, in 2017-18, the prime minister has been overthrown, not by the military, but by a judicial pronouncement. This time, the Prime Minister has been ousted, but the civilian leadership is intact.

That brings up the question: has the military chosen to be the backroom player this time? Instead of openly staging a coup—as the international environment is not favourable to a military takeover given the altered equations with the US—has the military used its faithful ally for decades, the judiciary, to do its hatchet job—to destabilise the popular civilian leadership so that the armed forces can have a stranglehold over public affairs?

It is an open secret that the military in Pakistan has always enjoyed much greater share of influence in policy-making than it is granted in any democratic setup across the world, but a popular leader like Nawaz Sharif, or a Bhutto, can always limit the military’s sphere of influence and/or freedom of action in order to assert the civilian supremacy.

When the military cannot openly stage a coup or reconcile to its receding control over public affairs, it has chosen to strike on the sly, with the support of the judiciary. Many would run down such an interpretation as an open embrace of the corrupt political leadership.

There is no doubt that, unfortunately for Pakistan, whenever the civilian government has risen as a consequence of popular movement or international pressure, the political leadership has mostly failed the people, largescale corruption being the bane of civilian leadership. Both Bhutto and Sharif clan which have dominated the political landscape in Pakistan for several decades have given ample evidence for such accusation.

The Panama Papers are the clear indictment of the rich and powerful who chose to siphon off their wealth to a foreign land in order to avoid paying taxes.

The Indian judiciary has barely taken cognisance of such a momentous revelation in the last two years. But the Pakistani judiciary quickly moved into action and dared to haul up even the highest official of the government. Normally, that should be a cause of celebration for those who keep faith with democratic institutions and processes. But, given the Pakistani court’s history of assiduously courting the military leaders, the grain of doubt remains if Nawaz Sharif’s was a actually a political, rather than a judicial trial.