Point of no return?

IS this the end? The state, as envisioned in the Constitution, is being dismantled in real-time. The government has made it clear it will not accept or implement a ruling issued by the full bench of the Supreme Court.

Social media and television channels have begun broadcasting open attacks on the judiciary, without any worry for the consequences. They are being shielded by the government’s own adversarial stance on the matter. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court judges have once again gone public with their disagreements, openly criticising and challenging each other through letters and observations. As things unravel, the judiciary has, for all practical purposes, been rendered defunct. If the bastion falls, there will be no turning back.
The government seems not to care that it has very little legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The engineering and machinations through which its creation was achieved, and which continue to be done to ensure its continuity and sustenance, have left little room for it to be seen in a favourable light. Additionally, its legislative agenda has laid bare the interests it truly serves.
Meanwhile, parliament has demeaned itself by allowing itself to be used to uproot the established division of power. Lawmakers continue to remind us that ‘parliament is supreme’, as if merely repeating the phrase ad nauseam will confer supremacy upon it. The truth is that they are almost ready to serve the country on a platter to forces that have no patience for democracy or parliamentary niceties and procedure.
To top it all off, the main opposition party remains so obsessed with its leadership’s troubles that it has found little time to connect with ordinary citizens, many of whom have been looking to it to give voice to their struggles.

It is within this context that the public had looked to the Supreme Court to act as a final arbiter in one of the key politico-legal disputes of our time. A full court was called to hear the matter, and it eventually issued a ruling. Most of the judges agreed that a wrong had been done and justice must be delivered; they only disagreed on how. Regardless, it was always the majority’s verdict that was to prevail.
Now, no matter where he personally stood on the matter, it is the chief justice’s responsibility to ensure his institution and its edicts’ respect. He should be wary that his public disagreements with other judges are being used as ammunition by the government, and should know he is being expected to take a stand for his fellow judges, many of whom once took a stand for him.
When he was appointed chief justice, he was simultaneously burdened with an immense responsibility. He must demonstrate he is worthy of bearing it.
Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2024