Clipped wings

Published March 30, 2023

THE incumbent government’s move to unilaterally relieve the chief justice’s office of two important discretionary powers cannot be condoned. To be clear, there is nothing repugnant in the changes being sought.

In fact, it has been a long-held opinion in the legal community that the chief justice’s suo motu powers ought to be regulated to prevent wanton invocation, and that benches formed to hear important cases should be more inclusive to reflect the diversity of thought within the Supreme Court.

However, the manner in which these changes are being introduced — rather, enforced on the superior judiciary — is problematic and likely to have long-lasting repercussions for the trichotomy of powers envisaged under the Constitution.

The most the government ought to have done at this point was forcefully request the superior judiciary to urgently convene a forum where they could settle the matter amongst themselves.

There is also the question of optics. It should be noted that the ‘amendments’ bill was slipped into an ongoing session of the National Assembly through a supplementary agenda after its unusually prompt approval by the federal cabinet. The government then seemed to be in a hurry to have it approved by all relevant quarters so that it could be enacted into law post-haste.

The urgency with which the legislation was moved would suggest the government was never really interested in any considered debate and deliberation on it.

There was also the question of timing: it was strange that the government sprang into action with a legislative proposal so quickly after the surfacing of the dissenting opinion of two honourable judges of the Supreme Court in which they objected to a suo motu notice taken by the chief justice.

Therefore, the question, ‘Does the government have a motive that goes beyond simply reforming the practices and procedures of the court’, is inescapable.

Whether or not the government’s legislative intervention is legally sound is a matter best left to the country’s legal minds. However, it appears this bill will more likely complicate the Supreme Court’s problems rather than solve them.

If the divisions within the top court remain unbridged, the functioning of the three-member ‘committee’ proposed under the bill will be anything but smooth. And if the Supreme Court is unable to prevent itself from repeatedly getting caught in an internal tug-of-war, other branches of the state will quickly find they are freer to commit excesses.

This is why the matter ought to have been left to senior judges to decide with their collective wisdom. However, the chief justice also needs to act. With pressures growing on his institution, he must restore its unity and credibility. One proposal is to have the full court hear the election delay case. He should reconsider it seriously.

Published in Dawn, March 30th, 2023

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.