COINED in an 1841 newspaper column, the term has several theories for its origin. One is that it refers to a court having ‘jumped up’ out of nowhere. Another suggests reference to the animal’s pouch, implying it is in someone’s pocket. But sometimes the simplest explanation is the likeliest to be true. The term ‘kangaroo court’ has a goofy sound to it, and things that are visibly farcical, that insult our intelligence and yet expect our utmost deference, often deserve being referred to with a healthy amount of ridicule.

In unrelated news, the Federal Constitu­tional Court (FCC) is now Pakistan’s top judicial body. It’s not bound by any prior decision of the Supreme Court, (SC) meaning 69 years of jurisprudence — the life’s work of dozens of our greatest judicial minds — has been effectively chucked into the trash can of history. These seven newly elevated judges have free rein to venture into new directions and depart from precedents deemed iron-clad until a month ago.

There is no parallel for such radical transformation (and demolition) of a judicial system in any modern democracy, but we’ve done it, so let’s consider the facts of what we’re left with. The president, on the prime minister’s advice, was the sole auth­ority appointing the judges that currently make up the FCC. No reasoning was given for why these judges were handpicked. The 27th Amendment’s newly modified Article 175A allowed unilateral appointment, departing from decades of domestic and centuries of international principles on the judiciary’s independence.

Humanity has known that this a terrible idea since at least the fifth century BC, when ancient Athens determined that no single authority could be trusted to appoint its Heliaia (people’s court), so this power must be given to a group. This idea was affirmed in ancient Roman assemblies, the Magna Carta in mediaeval England, the requirement of Senate confirmation in the US constitution, and the existence of judicial commissions in almost every modern democracy today. The reason is simple — you can’t put a fox in charge of the henhouse and expect anything less than a slaughter. Judiciaries exist to hold everyone accountable to the law, especially those who rule over us. That does not work if judges are beholden to those rulers for their appointments or promotions.

The executive has dangled a sword over every judge.

The methodology can’t be ignored; it was only three years ago that several SC judges and the Pakistan Bar Council opposed Justice Ayesha Malik’s elevation to the SC on account of the ‘seniority principle’. She was third at the Lahore High Court, and fiery arguments were made about how skipping senior judges without clear reason would allow for cherry-picking and court-packing. These received broad support from lawyers’ bodies. But now, as a judge of the Sindh High Court can be picked over eight of his seniors to head its constitutional bench, and later made to jump over all 23 SC judges for a spot on the FCC, all without a word of reason, the ‘principle’ seems to have faded into obscurity.

Beyond dangling a carrot of elevation to ensure obedience, the executive has also dangled a sword over every judge in the country, lest they get naughty ideas. The 27th Amendment altered Article 200 of the Constitution to allow high court judges to be transferred without their consent, and if they refuse, sent home instead. Every time a high court judge is confronted with a decision that involves powerful people, they’ll now have to consider whether it is worth ending their career, or spending a few years in Sibi, to do justice.

The situation we are left with isn’t a kangaroo court. It’s an attempt to turn Pa­­kistan into a kangaroo country, one whose entire legal framework is a pat­chwork of history’s worst ideas; that in­­centivises servitu­­de, punishes integrity, and ensures re­­­-

gression. Far from French or German models of constitutionalism, we are being thrust into a North Korea-style rule by force, that demands obedience and tolerates no dissent. And because a free judiciary is the foundation upon which the rest of our freedoms are built and defended, in its absence, the doors have been flung open for immeasurable rises in authoritarianism.

The people at the helm of these affairs (those who bulldozed the 26th and 27th Amendments through parliament, and those who shamefully chose to allow it) know this. They are not stupid, though they presume the rest of us to be. And so, they know the trashcan needs to be painted gold. These amendments must inevitably be undone, because they’ve butchered and bloodied our justice system to the extent that it can’t stand on its own feet anymore. But until that day, the entire house of cards will crave legitimacy and yearn for respect in the eyes of the people. One thing should be clear: it deserves neither.

The writer is a lawyer and columnist from Okara, based in Lahore.

X: [@hkwattoo1][1]

Published in Dawn, December 9th, 2025