pakistan’s

for internal security. In the absence of elected local government institutions, there was a lack of
formal contact between local community leaders and police and other law-enforcement agencies.
Local political leaders in union councils, municipal committees, metropolitan corporations, and
district councils, with their organic links to their constituent communities, had been a major
source of information about suspicious and criminal activities. These links proved to be quite
useful for local police officials to apprehend criminals and keep a watchful eye on suspicious
activities in the communities. 12
The Judiciary
Pakistan’s judicial system, inherited from British rule, consists of magistrates, session judges,
provincial high court judges, and the judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Lower-level
judicial appointments are made by the provincial governments, while judges of the provincial high
courts, Islamabad High Court, and the Supreme Court are appointed by the Judicial Council and
approved by the president.
The judicial system at the district level is generally seen as inefficient, hopelessly slow in the
disposal of cases, excessively beholden to bureaucratic rules and procedures, and irredeemably
corrupt. The judicial arteries are so heavily clogged with a huge number of litigations that both
civil and criminal cases linger for decades without formal hearings or decisions. The judiciary,
on the other hand, complains about the shortage of judicial officials at the lower level, blames
police investigators for their incompetence in preparing criminal cases, and accuses prosecutors of
a lack of professional training and an inability to collect admissible evidence against defendants.
It is no wonder that an overwhelming number of cases against those apprehended for committing
terrorist acts are dismissed by the judiciary either on technical grounds or because of inadequate
evidence presented by the prosecutors. A U.S. State Department report claimed that Pakistan
was incapable of prosecuting terror suspects, as the courts let 75% of apprehended terrorists go. 13
According to an official document, the courts have released 1,964 alleged terrorists from 2007,
with 722 rejoining terrorist groups and 1,197 continuing anti-state activities. 14
The most remarkable development with respect to the judiciary during the past seven
years has been the visible and activist role of both the Supreme Court and high courts in
political and administrative processes, which led to the executive-judiciary confrontation
that preceded the end of the Musharraf presidency. The main issue involved the restoration
of judges deposed by President Musharraf in 2007, including the chief justice of the Supreme
Court, Itikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Even ater being democratically elected, the PPP
government was reluctant as well to restore Justice Chaudhry out of fear that he might strike
down the amnesty provided to President Zardari for corruption charges under the National
Reconciliation Ordinance. When the deposed judges were eventually restored in March
2009 as a result of massive popular protests led by the PML-N and with behind-the-scenes
pressure from the military, they were ready to pounce on the executive with a vengeance.
Choudhry’s Supreme Court, for example, launched an investigation into the “memogate”
scandal, which involved President Zardari and Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington allegedly
12 The army and paramilitary forces in Swat and Dir, for example, deployed successfully hundreds of former elected officials of local
government and other notables in “peace committees” to gather information about the Taliban and other militants and to help the security
agencies apprehend them.
13 “Pakistani Courts Let 3 out of Every 4 Terror Suspects Go: U.S. State Department,” Express Tribune, September 1, 2011.
18
NBR
14 Malik Asad, “722 Suspects Rejoined Terrorist Groups ater Acquittal,” Dawn, October 19, 2013.
SPECIAL REPORT u FEBRUARY 2016