PPP chief interested in joining commission as party seeks greater say in judicial appointments
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Photo: Express
ISLAMABAD’:
Two members belonging to the treasury benches in the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) have tendered their resignations, paving the way for a possible reshuffle in the commission’s parliamentary representation, with PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari being considered for membership.
PPP Senator Farooq H Naek and PML-N MNA Sheikh Aftab have resigned as members of the JCP, according to sources. JCP sources told The Express Tribune that Bilawal is interested in becoming a member of the commission. He is currently a member of the National Assembly.
Under the proposed arrangement, the PPP is expected to secure representation from the National Assembly, while the PML-N would be given representation from the Senate.
The development comes amid reported dissatisfaction within the PPP leadership over the failure to secure the appointment of its preferred candidates as judges of the superior courts.
Naek, a senior PPP legal figure and the outgoing JCP member, had proposed 33 candidates for appointment to the superior judiciary16 for the Sindh High Court (SHC), 10 for the Lahore High Court (LHC), five for the Balochistan High Court (BHC) and two for the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The PPP leadership was particularly interested in securing the appointment of two of its nominees to the SHC. However, neither the judicial nor executive members of the commission supported their candidatures.
Similarly, the executive members did not back any of Naek’s nominees for the LHC, IHC and BHC.
Facing insufficient support from both judicial and executive members, Naek withdrew several nominations before the relevant meetings commenced, while some of the remaining candidates failed to secure the required majority.
The PPP had also sought a six-month extension in the tenure of judges serving on the SHC’s constitutional benches. However, the JCP’s judicial members agreed to extend their tenure by only three months.
The non-confirmation of SHC Additional Judge Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah was also viewed as a setback for the PPP. Last year, the party succeeded in influencing judicial appointments in several high courts, particularly the SHC, Peshawar High Court and LHC.
The subsequent delay by the president in approving the summary for the appointment of judges for several weeks also generated speculation. The summary was eventually approved following what sources described as an understanding with the government.
The possibility of Bilawal’s nomination to the JCP has meanwhile triggered a fresh debate among lawyers over the growing political role in judicial appointments.
One section of the legal community believes it would have been preferable for Bilawal to nominate a trusted lawmaker to represent the PPP on the commission rather than join it himself.
They argue that the influence of powerful political circles in judicial appointments cannot be ruled out following the 26th Constitutional Amendment. They also contend that it could put Bilawal in an awkward position if he is required to endorse nominees backed by other political groups during commission meetings.
Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed said the changes made to the JCP under the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments were a clear indication that political considerations would now outweigh legal considerations in judicial appointments.
“Replacing Farooq H Naek with Bilawal Bhutto Zardari shows that political parties no longer wish to even maintain a fig leaf of pretence that candidates for judicial appointments shall be assessed on the merits of their legal credentials as opposed to the strength of their political affiliations,” he said.
Rida Hosain, an advocate, said Bilawal had been one of the most vocal champions of the constitutional amendments.
“At the time, he justified them as the completion of the ‘unfinished’ agenda of the Charter of Democracy, tackling judicial activism, and ensuring provincial representation in the courts. It was clear then, and it is clear as day now, there is nothing representative or democratic about this structure,” she said.
Hosain further argued that the amendments had weakened judicial independence and that their consequences had extended to women’s rights jurisprudence, which, she said, had also been affected by the executive-appointed Federal Constitutional Court.
“The judicial members have been rendered a minority in the Judicial Commission. Meanwhile, approval by the sitting government and its allies has become decisive in judicial appointments.
“The High Court judges are also subject to a ‘performance evaluation’ by the JCP. Not only their appointment, but also their survival on the bench depends on government approval,” she said.
She added that the amendments had made the judiciary more vulnerable to interference.
“Ultimately, political power has a dominant say over who sits on the bench, who rises within it, and who remains there,” Hosain said.
