Clash between Pak judiciary and military establishment intensifies

Islamabad: The clash between Pakistan’s judiciary and the military establishment has intensified as judges have started questioning the conduct of army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) officers over blatant interference in judicial matters.
Several high court and lower court judges have complained that since May 9, 2023, Pakistan’s “powerful” authorities (i.e. army, ISI) have tried to pressurise them using intimidatory tactics such as secret surveillance, and even abduction and torture of their family members, to secure favourable outcomes in political cases related to PTI party and its incarcerated founder, Imran Khan.
At an event in Rawalpindi, Lahore high court chief justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad claimed he has got complaints - many verbally - and letters regarding interference in judicial matters by “institutions” (a reference to the army and ISI). “To get rid of the (military) establishment’s interference, we’ve to face it with bravery, courage, and without any fear, and with the belief that this interference will end soon. Temporary worries do come but you have to face them eye to eye and not be a target of any of their blackmailing. Do not be hesitant to make any kind of sacrifice.” Justice Ahmad said Pakistan was currently “going through one of the longest periods of a civil govt”, adding that the 2007 lawyers’ movement “closed the doors for martial law forever”.
Earlier, the Lahore HC had summoned Punjab police chief Usman Anwar and other officials on a complaint from a presiding judge of an anti-terrorism court alleging harassment by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Earlier, in March, six of the eight Islamabad HC judges had penned a startling letter to Supreme Court judges about attempts by the ISI to pressure them through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes. Following the letter, judges from other HCs also acknowledged interference by spy agencies in judicial functions. It led the apex court to take suo motu notice of the matter, with high courts submitting their responses and recommendations as proceedings continued.