he constitution of our federal republic envisages three pillars: the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Each pillar has distinct powers. The separation of powers in a republic operates as a check and balance ensuring no single branch enjoys unbridled power. The Legislature in our country has, for some time, simply endorsed Executive proposals and not been an effective check on Executive power. This year the third pillar—the Judiciary—was dismantled and became a rubber stamp. The judges sat as silent spectators, shrugged their shoulders and through their decisions and actions acknowledged that the powers of the pen and the law matter for little. It was a tacit acceptance of their irrelevance.

2025 will be remembered as the year when politicians, judges, legislators and the media all had to face an uncomfortable truth: real power flows from the barrel of a gun.

At the end of 2024, a controversial chief justice left office. An amendment to the constitution ensured that a government-approved nominee replaced him. The 26th Amendment was designed to defang the Judiciary and sideline independent judges. Its professed aim of greater efficiency or fulfilment of political commitments was a fig-leaf. Constitutional benches were created within the Supreme Court to hear constitutional cases. The judges on these benches were selected by a judicial commission with five government-nominated members out of thirteen. All the judges selected to these benches had government support. The government was given a significant say in deciding which judges would hear cases involving the government. The litigant facing the government was given no such right. This uneven playing field was further entrenched by the fact that there was no security of tenure for these judges. They could be removed any time from the constitutional benches by the government-dominated commission.

When a constitutional bench of these judges endorsed the military trial of civilians in May 2025, it was unsurprising. In an intra-court appeal, the highest court in the land endorsed a law their colleagues had earlier struck down as being in violation of fundamental rights. They held that serving army officers could act as judges in certain serious criminal cases. This ceding of judicial space was a sign of the times. The government had ceded political space in economic and other decision making. The judges had joined the bandwagon.

Even the constitutional bench had to acknowledge that such court martial proceedings against civilians without a right of appeal to an independent judicial forum place Pakistan in violation of various international covenants and constitutional norms. Rather than strike down the relevant law on this basis, the bench proceeded to refer the matter to the government for considering and making necessary changes in the legislation within 45 days to provide for an appellate right to the High Court. Rather than judge the constitutionality of the law (the sole task of a judge), the judges assumed the role of legislators and referred the matter to the government. This provides an insight into where we stand today: judges are reluctant to judge but keen to legislate; Executive officers keen to judge but reluctant to be judged. It seems that no one is content to do their assigned job.

The government ignored the 45-day deadline. A contempt petition filed against the prime minister by one of the parties to the litigation has not been listed for hearing. Selective implementation by the government of court orders is a cause of concern but no surprise. It is simply a sign of the times.

Various petitioners challenged the 26th Amendment before the Supreme Court. This was clearly an urgent matter as it impacted the functioning of the highest court of the land. These petitions were listed for hearing in January 2025 before a constitutional bench and adjourned. They were not heard again till October 2025. The Supreme Court and the judges responsible for listing of cases had a duty to ensure that these petitions were promptly listed, heard and decided. They failed to discharge this duty.

While the 26th Amendment petitions were being argued, a further amendment to the constitution was made in November. The 27th Amendment abolished the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and vested it in a new court, the Federal Constitutional Court. The FCC is composed of judges selected by the Executive. They will decide whether the Executive has violated the constitution. In doing so, they will have a free hand unfettered by precedent.

Individuals and nations are fallible and make mistakes. Those who learn from their mistakes and adjust their behaviour, make progress. We are repeating the mistakes of the past. An iconic English rock band of the 1970s, The Who, wrote a song titled, Won’t Get Fooled Again, celebrating a new constitution and an apparent new beginning. The closing words of the song reflected their disenchantment with the so-called new dawn: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

For several decades now, this country and its hapless citizens have been getting fooled again and again. Those who claim to stand for principles end up compromising principles for power. This behaviour is justified through various self-serving arguments: to correct past injustices; to make a little bit of a difference where one can; to avoid an even greater turmoil and oppression; to address the existential and security threats faced. These are all arguments of necessity. Once space is conceded and the argument shifts from principle to expedience, the battle is lost.

The fundamental problem with any power structure based on individuals as opposed to systems remains succession. A saying attributed to Louix the XV, the 18th Century French King, predicted that after him there would be chaos. Even if individuals are granted immunity, no parliament can confer immortality. With the next transition, we will be back at square one. The new boss will decide which direction to take. It is about time we stopped repeating the same mistake and started making some new ones.

Happy New Year to all my fellow citizens. May 2026 be a prosperous and peaceful year for our beloved country.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court.