By: KAMRAN JATOI
“Justice is not secure when even those entrusted to uphold it are compelled to seek
it for themselves.”
There is an old metaphor.
A sparrow whispered something into an elephant’s ear that made the elephant cry in
pain. It said, ” Seek justice.”
The elephant then whispered something back that made the sparrow laugh.
“That is exactly what the judge is searching for—justice.”
The metaphor is not intended as humor. It reflects a harsh reality found in societies
where personal influence, informal authority, and institutional power outweigh
constitutional principles and the rule of law.
The fundamental distinction between a stable constitutional democracy and a weak
state is not merely economic prosperity. It is whether the law governs those in power
or whether power governs the law.
In countries where the Constitution and independent institutions remain supreme,
disputes between public officials are resolved through lawful procedures. In weaker
systems, however, institutional conflicts often become personal battles for
dominance, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the consequences.
Pakistan’s Constitution establishes the separation of powers among the legislature,
the executive, and the judiciary. Each institution has defined constitutional
responsibilities, and none is intended to operate above the law. When these
constitutional boundaries are ignored, public confidence in governance and the
justice system inevitably erodes.
Recent events involving members of the subordinate judiciary in Sindh have
reignited concerns about judicial independence and institutional accountability.
According to allegations that have circulated publicly and have been discussed in
legal circles, the controversy began after police officers stopped a woman during
routine checking. It is alleged that a senior police officer responded by ordering the
unlawful detention of four police officials. After learning of the incident, a Judicial
Magistrate reportedly conducted a judicial inspection of the relevant police station
and ordered the officers’ release, considering their detention unlawful.
Subsequently, it has been alleged that criminal cases, including robbery charges,
were registered against those same police officials on the complaint of the woman
and her brother. Those cases were later decided by the courts, and the accused
officers were acquitted.
Following these events, further allegations emerged that judicial officers, including
Zahid Hussain Mugheri and Judge Niaz Hussain Mastoi, became the targets of
retaliatory administrative and criminal proceedings. It has been alleged that multiple
First Information Reports (FIRs), including cases involving narcotics and illegal
possession of firearms, were registered against one of the judges, who has
consistently maintained that the allegations are false and were initiated in retaliation
for performing judicial duties. These allegations remain matters for the competent
legal authorities and courts to determine.
Regardless of the eventual legal outcome, the broader institutional implications
deserve serious public attention.
The judiciary derives its authority not from force but from public confidence in its
independence. If judges come to believe that enforcing the law impartially may
expose them to professional retaliation, criminal prosecution, or personal
harassment, the consequences extend far beyond the careers of individual judges.
Every newly appointed judicial officer will inevitably ask a difficult question:
If performing my constitutional duty places my own liberty, reputation, and career at
risk, who will protect me?
That question affects the entire justice system.
When honest judges fear retaliation, difficult decisions become more difficult still.
Public officials who should act independently may instead choose caution over
principle, compromise over courage, and silence over accountability. The result is
not merely injustice to individuals but a gradual weakening of the rule of law itself.
History demonstrates the dangers of institutional decline.
The Caribbean nation of Haiti illustrates how the erosion of state authority can lead
to devastating consequences. Years of institutional weakness, political instability, and
the growing influence of heavily armed criminal gangs have left large parts of the
country beyond effective government control. Millions have suffered from violence,
displacement, poverty, and humanitarian crises. Despite international assistance,
including support authorized by the United Nations, restoring effective governance
has proven exceptionally difficult.
Pakistan is not Haiti, nor should simplistic comparisons be drawn. However, Haiti
serves as a reminder that when state institutions lose credibility, when lawful
authority is challenged by competing centers of power, and when justice is perceived
as selective rather than impartial, rebuilding public trust becomes extraordinarily
difficult.
Ultimately, this debate is not about the victory of one institution over another. It is
about preserving constitutional governance.
A state governed by the rule of law requires that politicians, police officers, civil
servants, judges, military officials, and every public officeholder remain equally
accountable to the Constitution and the law.
The greatest danger to any democracy is not disagreement among institutions; it is
the perception that power, rather than law, determines outcomes.
When judges begin asking for justice instead of dispensing it with confidence and
independence, the warning should concern every citizen.
Justice cannot survive where fear replaces independence, where retaliation replaces
accountability, and where institutions compete for supremacy instead of serving the
Constitution.
The rule of law is not protected by the strength of any single institution. It is protected
only when every institution accepts that the Constitution is supreme, the law applies
equally to all, and justice must never become the privilege of the powerful.*serious
public attention.
The judiciary derives its authority not from force but from public confidence in its
independence. If judges come to believe that enforcing the law impartially may
expose them to professional retaliation, criminal prosecution, or personal
harassment, the consequences extend far beyond the careers of individual judges.
Every newly appointed judicial officer will inevitably ask a difficult question:
If performing my constitutional duty places my own liberty, reputation, and career at
risk, who will protect me?
That question affects the entire justice system.
When honest judges fear retaliation, difficult decisions become more difficult still.
Public officials who should act independently may instead choose caution over
principle, compromise over courage, and silence over accountability. The result is
not merely injustice to individuals but a gradual weakening of the rule of law itself.
History demonstrates the dangers of institutional decline.
The Caribbean nation of Haiti illustrates how the erosion of state authority can lead
to devastating consequences. Years of institutional weakness, political instability, and
the growing influence of heavily armed criminal gangs have left large parts of the
country beyond effective government control. Millions have suffered from violence,
displacement, poverty, and humanitarian crises. Despite international assistance,
including support authorized by the United Nations, restoring effective governance
has proven exceptionally difficult.
Pakistan is not Haiti, nor should simplistic comparisons be drawn. However, Haiti
serves as a reminder that when state institutions lose credibility, when lawful
authority is challenged by competing centers of power, and when justice is perceived
as selective rather than impartial, rebuilding public trust becomes extraordinarily
difficult.
Ultimately, this debate is not about the victory of one institution over another. It is
about preserving constitutional governance.
A state governed by the rule of law requires that politicians, police officers, civil
servants, judges, military officials, and every public officeholder remain equally
accountable to the Constitution and the law.
The greatest danger to any democracy is not disagreement among institutions; it is
the perception that power, rather than law, determines outcomes.
When judges begin asking for justice instead of dispensing it with confidence and
independence, the warning should concern every citizen.
Justice cannot survive where fear replaces independence, where retaliation replaces
accountability, and where institutions compete for supremacy instead of serving the
Constitution.
The rule of law is not protected by the strength of any single institution. It is protected
only when every institution accepts that *the Constitution is supreme, the law applies
equally to all, and justice must never become the privilege of the powerful.
Writer is London based intellectual and Human Rights activist, can be contacted on Jatoi.kamran111@gmail.com
