Privatisation must move fast and stay transparent

The Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court has voted to remove prosecutor Karim Khan. The vote came over sexual misconduct allegations. His legal team has confirmed the move and called it political. The vote happened on Friday. It came at a time when the ICC faces heavy pressure from the United States and Israel. This pressure grew after Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant in 2024. This timing raises serious questions. Tayab Ali, head of Khan’s legal team, said a judicial panel had unanimously found no misconduct or breach of duty by Khan. Yet member states still voted him out. This decision does not follow the evidence. It does not follow the only judicial finding in the matter. That is unacceptable. Khan was removed by an executive vote while under US sanctions and while the court itself sat under enormous political pressure. He was never given a fair chance to be heard. A process built this way cannot claim to deliver justice. It looks like punishment for doing his job. Minute Mirror stands with Karim Khan on this point. An organisation meant to protect international law must not bend to pressure from powerful states. The ICC was built to hold leaders accountable, including leaders backed by strong allies. If prosecutors can be removed the moment they issue warrants against a protected ally, the court loses its purpose entirely. The ICC has failed Karim Khan. It failed to protect its own official from a process that ignored its own judges. It failed to explain why political timing lined up so closely with the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants. Removing him does not erase those warrants, since only ICC judges can withdraw them. But it damages trust in the court at the exact moment the world needed that trust most. Justice must never depend on who a defendant knows in Washington or Tel Aviv.

Exports rose sharply in July 2026, and this is genuinely good news. According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, exports reached 2.939 billion dollars in July, up from 2.242 billion dollars in June. That is a 31 percent increase in just one month. Compared with July last year, exports grew by over 9 percent. This is a strong start to the new fiscal year, and it deserves credit. Much of this growth appears to come from sectors Pakistan knows well, including textiles, food products, leather goods, sports equipment, surgical instruments, and IT services. Government efforts to support exporters and improve industrial production seem to be paying off. But one good month does not make a trend. Pakistan has seen export numbers rise before, only to fall back a few months later. The real question is whether this growth can be sustained through the rest of the fiscal year. A single strong month should not be treated as proof that the country’s export problems are solved. The economy needs exports to grow consistently, not occasionally. The country still runs a large trade deficit, and one good month does very little to fix that. What Pakistan needs is month after month of rising export figures, not a single spike followed by stagnation. This will not happen on its own. It requires stable energy prices, a predictable exchange rate, and continued government support for exporters. It also requires our exporters to sell more products to more countries, instead of depending on the same limited markets. The government should treat this month’s numbers as a starting point, not a finish line. Pakistan does not need one strong export month. It needs many more of them, back to back, for this to actually mean something for the economy.

Thousands of people gathered on the streets of Washington this week. They came with Palestinian flags. They came with banners. They came with one clear demand. They want Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested the moment he sets foot in the United States. This demand is not extreme. It is based on law. The International Criminal Court has already issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu. Judges at the court found reasonable grounds to believe he bears responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Countries that respect international law are expected to act on such warrants. The United States chose not to. President Donald Trump made his position clear before Netanyahu even landed. He said Netanyahu would not be arrested on American soil. He defended Israel’s actions in the region without hesitation. This sends a troubling message. It tells the world that some leaders are above the law, as long as they have powerful friends. The protesters deserve credit. They did not stay silent. They stood outside in the summer heat and said what many people around the world are thinking. Gaza has suffered enormous destruction. Tens of thousands of civilians have died. Homes, hospitals and schools have been reduced to rubble. Ordinary people watching this unfold have every right to demand accountability from the man who led that campaign. It is worth noting that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has taken a braver stance than the federal government. He has said his city will look into enforcing the ICC warrant if Netanyahu travels there in September for the United Nations General Assembly. This is what leadership looks like. It is a reminder that not every American official is willing to look away. Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump this week was billed as a discussion of regional strategy after their joint military action against Iran. But the real story outside the White House gates was the crowd demanding justice. Their voices should not be dismissed as noise. They represent a growing global frustration with double standards in how international law is applied. The world should stands with those who believe no leader, however powerful his allies, should be shielded from accountability. The protesters in Washington were not the problem this week. The problem was the decision to protect a man wanted by the world’s highest court.

The Supreme Court has given a landmark ruling on women’s rights. It has declared that a woman’s right to seek khula, or judicial divorce, is a constitutional right. The court said that violence against a woman for exercising this right is an attack on the Constitution itself. A three member bench dismissed the jail petition of convict Waseem Abbas and upheld his death sentence. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar wrote the four page detailed judgment. The court said women are fully protected under Articles 9, 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee their security, dignity and equal rights. It said anyone who uses violence against a woman seeking khula will face the full force of the law, and called the killing of a woman for exercising her legal right an act of brutality and open defiance of the law. The court also ruled that a person involved in a cold blooded and planned murder does not deserve any concession. It clarified that the testimony of relatives cannot be automatically rejected in cases that happen inside a home. Forensic evidence, including a match between bullet casings and the weapon linked to the crime, gave conclusive proof against the accused. The court found no flaw in the lower courts’ decisions. According to the case record, Waseem Abbas shot and killed his former wife, Shehnaz Bibi, on October 11, 2020, about 48 hours after she obtained a khula decree from a family court. A trial court had sentenced him to death, and the Lahore High Court upheld that sentence. This judgment sends a strong message and gives justice in this one case. But the law alone cannot protect every woman in Shehnaz Bibi’s position. Many women never even reach the court, because they fear exactly this kind of violence at home. A verdict can punish a killer after the fact, but it cannot undo the loss of a life. To truly protect women, society itself needs to change how it views a woman’s right to leave a marriage. Courts can deliver justice, but only a shift in mindset, at home, in communities, and among families, can prevent the next Shehnaz Bibi.

The latest developments surrounding Imran Khan’s medical examination raise an important question that goes beyond politics: how should a state treat the health and basic rights of a prisoner? According to his sister, Uzma Khan, Imran complained of health problems that he believed were linked to his prolonged solitary confinement. She also described confusion surrounding her visit to the jail and her subsequent arrival at PIMS, where she unexpectedly met her brother during his medical examination. These are her claims and should be independently verified by the relevant authorities. The Supreme Court had already directed that Imran Khan be taken to Shifa International Hospital for a medical examination and that information about his health should not become a political tool. That order should be implemented clearly and without unnecessary controversy. There is also a reasonable question about family access. Imran Khan is a prisoner, and prison authorities have legitimate security responsibilities. But those responsibilities should not unnecessarily prevent close family members from meeting an incarcerated person, particularly when there are genuine concerns about his health. Clear rules, proper security checks and transparent procedures can protect both the prisoner and the state. This position should not depend on political affiliation. When Imran Khan was in power, his government was also criticised for its treatment and public comments regarding prisoners. He and his supporters sometimes appeared dismissive of the concerns of incarcerated opponents. That history should be remembered—not to justify similar treatment today, but to underline an important principle: justice should not change with the identity of the prisoner.

Two tribal elders lost their lives on Sunday in Lower South Waziristan. Gunmen shot Haji Gul and Malik Badshah while they travelled from Gul Kach to Zarmilan. Both men belonged to the Suleman Khel tribe. Police say the attackers escaped after the shooting. This is not an isolated case. It is part of a pattern that the state cannot keep ignoring. Tribal elders play a special role in this region. They settle disputes through jirgas. They stop small conflicts from becoming big ones. They keep peace between families and tribes. When someone kills these elders, they are not just killing individuals. They are killing the peace process itself. The list of victims keeps growing. In May, militants killed Malik Tariq Wazir in a bomb blast in Wana. He was a respected elder of the Ahmadzai Wazir tribe. He had already survived an abduction in December 2024. He came back and kept working for peace. Then a bomb ended his life near a busy market. In June, gunmen killed two sons of another elder, Malik Jamil Wazir, in the same area. These killings send a clear message. Anyone who works for peace in Waziristan becomes a target. Over the past 18 months, Lower South Waziristan has seen more targeted killings, bomb attacks, kidnappings and extortion. Attacks on police and security forces have also increased. The people who suffer the most are ordinary tribesmen and the elders who try to protect them. Meanwhile, security forces report success in Balochistan. Under Operation Rad-ul-Fitna-3, forces killed 15 militants in areas including Mastung, Bolan, Washuk, Awaran, Sibi, Khuzdar, Harnai and Noshki. They also recovered weapons and ammunition. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi praised the forces for these operations. These operations matter. They weaken militant networks. But military action alone cannot solve the deeper problem. The government needs a two-part plan. First, it must continue operations against armed militants. Second, and just as important, it must protect the peace-loving elders and common citizens who become easy targets. Right now, the second part is missing. Elders like Malik Tariq Wazir and Malik Jamil Wazir did not carry weapons. They carried influence and trust. That made them vulnerable, not safe. Security forces should extend protection to tribal jirga members, especially those who have received threats. Police in Waziristan need better resources to investigate these killings quickly and to make arrests, not just launch preliminary cases that go nowhere. Local communities need faster response times when gunmen attack. Elders who mediate disputes deserve the same level of security attention as government officials, because they are doing work that keeps the state’s own peace efforts alive. Killing militants is one battle. Protecting the elders and common people who choose peace over violence in Waziristan is another. The government must treat both as equally urgent. If peace-loving voices keep dying in silence, fewer people will dare to raise those voices at all.