The Middle Ground Shifts: How Gaza, Riyadh, and Te…

By Qashf Aizdi Justice delayed is justice denied. This phrase has become almost cliché in Pakistan and it unfortunately remains painfully true for millions of litigants who are waiting for their day in court. Every year hundreds of new cases are filed while thousands remain undecided and as a result courtrooms continue to grow more congested and hearings become more infrequent. The unfortunate consequence is that justice moves further out of reach. Time is perhaps the only thing Pakistan’s justice system can no longer afford to lose. The scale of the crisis is reflected in the numbers. According to the Judicial Statistics of Pakistan 2023, more than 2.25 million cases remain pending before courts of Pakistan. During the same year, 4.48 million new cases were instituted while 4.41 million were disposed of, resulting in a 5 percent increase in the overall backlog. The district judiciary alone accounts for 82 percent of all pending cases. With just over 3,100 working judges and judicial officers, each is responsible for more than 700 pending cases, even before accounting for the thousands of new cases filed every year. These figures do not suggest that Pakistan’s judges are idle; rather, they point to a justice system struggling to keep pace with an ever-growing caseload. Civil disputes in Pakistan can often take 10 to 15 years and in some instances even longer, before reaching its conclusion. Court proceedings are routinely delayed by repeated adjournments, cumbersome procedures, paper-based case management and multiple tiers of appeal. Difficulties in serving notices, delays in recording evidence and frequent adjournment requests often leave litigants waiting months before their cases are heard again. Additionally, the consequences of delayed justice extend beyond the courtroom. By the time a case is finally decided, litigants find themselves in a morass of mounting legal costs, lost opportunities and prolonged uncertainty. Every adjournment adds to the financial and emotional burden borne by litigants. A favorable judgment delivered after years of litigation can never fully restore the time, financial stability or peace of mind that has already been obliterated. Article 37(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan obliges the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. Yet, for many litigants, this constitutional promise often rings hollow. As mounting caseloads continue to overwhelm the judiciary, lengthy delays have become an accepted and vexatious feature of the legal system rather than an exception. Justice that arrives years too late often fails to provide meaningful relief. The immediate explanation is ostensibly straightforward; the number of judges is insufficient to handle the growing caseload. Pakistan has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the region, leaving judges responsible for hundreds and often thousands of matters. Yet the shortage of judges tells only part of the story. Addressing this crisis requires more than appointing additional judges; it demands a more comprehensive approach to resolving disputes. One such reform lies in the greater use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Cases can be resolved out of court using processes like mediation and arbitration, whereby judges can focus on cases which require formal adjudication. Consequently, ADR works in conjunction with the courts in solving disputes outside of court. The potential of ADR is perhaps best illustrated by the Morgah Valley dispute. Despite taking over 42 years to be settled via litigation, the same case took only two months to settle after being referred to mediation. Though not all disputes are suitable for mediation, this case is an example of the value that comes with the application of ADR at the right time. More importantly, it shows that timely justice is not an impossible ideal but an achievable one when the right mechanisms are used. However, for countless litigants, delay remains the norm as the judiciary continues to grapple with overwhelming caseloads. Repeated adjournments leave litigants facing prolonged uncertainty and growing frustration. Cases pass from one generation to the next and some litigants never live to see the final outcome of disputes they initiated and fought for. Justice should not become an inheritance passed from parents to children. The longer that reform is postponed, the greater the cost to litigants, businesses and public confidence. Pakistan’s courts are running out of time and so are the people waiting for justice. If Pakistan is serious about fulfilling the constitutional vision embodied in Article 37(d) of the Constitution, reducing judicial delays can no longer remain an aspiration, it must become a national priority. Reforming the justice system will require efficient case management, greater use of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms and a collective commitment to ensuring that justice is delivered when it is needed most. Until then, Pakistan’s courts will continue to run out of the one resource they cannot recover: time.  

Pakistan was achieved on the fourteenth of August in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, after sacrifices of a magnitude that still stir the soul and a struggle whose tirelessness remains an enduring lesson. Millions crossed borders in those turbulent months, leaving behind ancestral homes, familial graves, and the familiar soil of generations, so that a new homeland might rise where Muslims could live according to their faith and their free will. We stand now upon the threshold of the eighth decade of that hard-won independence. I, a Pakistani by birth and by conviction, have myself lived nearly fifty-eight years within the borders of this free land. This country conferred upon me an identity that no foreign power could erase, furnished me with the means of an independent existence—schools in which to learn, roads upon which to travel, markets in which to earn my bread—bestowed a measure of respect in the eyes of the world, and, in some degree, granted me a name among my fellows. Yet the question returns, quietly and persistently, like a debt long deferred; what have I given in return? Have I ever paused long enough, in the press of daily concerns, to weigh that debt with honesty? The same inquiry must be put, with equal seriousness and without partiality, to the institutions that were meant to serve as the pillars of the state, and to the rulers and authorities who have held power through these eighty years. What account can they render of their stewardship? Parliament was intended as the voice of the people; the courts as the guardians of justice; the civil service as the steady hand of administration; the universities as the nurseries of thought and character. Have these bodies discharged their duties with fidelity, or have they at times become arenas of personal ambition, partisan calculation, and the slow corrosion of public trust? The rulers who succeeded one another, whether civilian or military, received the same inheritance of soil, of people, and of hope. What have they added to the national store of justice, of prosperity, of self-respect, and of unity? The record is mixed, and the gaps are painful to contemplate. Have we, as a people, ever undertaken a true reckoning of our collective performance—not the ritual of speeches on national days, but a sober examination of conscience? And if such an accounting was made, did it lead to any genuine reformation of our ways, or did we merely resume the old habits once the anniversary had passed? Where, in truth, does Pakistan stand as a state at this present hour? We possess a land rich in rivers and fertile plains, a people endowed with resilience and talent, a strategic position that nature itself seems to have marked for consequence. Yet we continue to wrestle with the burdens of poverty that still touch too many homes, with the lingering shadows of disorder in parts of the country, with the uneasy balance between institutions that ought to complement one another, and with the persistent temptation to place private gain above the common good. Have we preserved, or have we frittered away, the sacred trust that our ancestors placed in our hands when they bequeathed us this country? That trust was not lightly given. It demanded vigilance against tyranny, honesty in public dealing, a willingness to educate the young in both knowledge and character, and a readiness to place the welfare of the whole above the advantage of the few. Looking back across the decades, one is compelled to ask whether that demand has been met in full measure. I do not exempt myself from this examination. For nearly six decades I have drawn from the well of national life—the protection of law, the opportunity to work and to speak, the simple privilege of calling myself a citizen of a free land. Have my contributions matched the gifts received? Have I laboured, in whatever sphere was allotted me, to strengthen rather than weaken the fabric of the republic? Have I spoken truth when silence was easier, practised fairness when partiality promised profit, and taught the rising generation that freedom is not a birthright to be consumed but a responsibility to be renewed? Honesty requires that each of us answer such questions in the solitude of his own heart, without the convenient shield of collective excuses or the comfortable habit of blaming those who came before. Enough, then, of evasion. The hour has come for every citizen, high or low, including the writer of these lines, to conduct a personal audit. Let each examine what he has taken and what he has returned. Let the institutions examine their fidelity to the purposes for which they were created. Let those who hold authority examine whether their decisions have served the enduring interests of the state or the fleeting interests of the moment. Only through such unsparing self-examination, followed by the hard work of reform, can the trust of the founders be renewed and the promise of Pakistan still be fulfilled for those who will inherit what we leave behind.

Noreen Niazi, sister of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan, made controversial remarks in a widely circulated podcast that drew widespread criticism across Pakistan. She alleged that the military confrontation with India, referred to in Pakistan as Marka-e-Haq (Battle of Truth), was a staged event rather than a genuine act of national defence and claimed there was a secret understanding between the Pakistan Army and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to mislead the Pakistani public. She further alleged that Israel and the United States were behind the conflict, claiming India acted under Israeli influence to pressure Pakistan into recognizing Israel through the Abraham Accords, that Pakistan’s government and military had secretly contacted Israeli officials, and that praise from US President Donald Trump for Pakistan’s leadership was part of this alleged agenda. She admitted she had no official information or evidence for these claims and had reached them through her own reasoning, prompting critics to dismiss the allegations as baseless misinformation that undermined the Pakistan Army, the country’s foreign policy, and the sacrifices of its soldiers. Her remarks triggered legal and political condemnation. The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency issued her a legal notice and summons, accusing her of spreading false, offensive, and inflammatory content intended to defame state institutions, harm national unity, and warning of legal consequences under Section 174 of the Pakistan Penal Code if she failed to comply. Political leaders, including Punjab Information Minister Azma Bokhari, condemned the remarks, linked them to Imran Khan’s political outlook, argued they were contrary to Pakistan’s national interests and achievements, and warned they could be exploited by hostile foreign media to damage the country’s image. Her allegations about Israel were also rejected as inconsistent with Pakistan’s longstanding foreign policy, which supports the Palestinian cause, rejects recognition of Israel until an independent Palestinian state is established on the pre-1967 borders with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, and was reaffirmed by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif in May 2026. Pakistan’s passport, which remains invalid for travel to Israel, was also cited as evidence contradicting claims of secret normalization efforts. The Marka-e-Haq operation itself was a monumental moment for Pakistan that redefined the country’s military strategy and deterrence capability. The operation was not just a simple skirmish but a carefully planned and executed response to aggression that showcased the exceptional capabilities of the Pakistan Army and the Air Force. The armed forces, through coordinated leadership and superior tactics, successfully foiled any Indian attempts to escalate the conflict. The entire operation demonstrated Pakistan’s resolve to defend its borders at all costs and highlighted the nation’s advancements in modern warfare and technology. The Director General of the Inter-Services Public Relations provided a detailed briefing to the nation, outlining the ten strategic outcomes of the Marka-e-Haq. He explained how the operation transformed the nature of warfare and re-established a balance of power in the region. The entire Pakistani nation, from the northern areas to the southern coast, united in support of its military and celebrated the professionalism and bravery displayed by the armed forces. This unity was a source of immense strength and sent a clear message to the international community about the resilience of the Pakistani nation. It is this very success and the strengthening of national unity that act as a major irritant for the country’s enemies, both internal and external. Those who seek to destabilize Pakistan and weaken its military understand that a strong and confident army is the biggest obstacle to their nefarious plans. Therefore, they continuously resort to such malicious propaganda, attempting to create divisions and lower the morale of the forces. The false narratives propagated by individuals like Noreen Niazi are thus seen as a direct tool of these enemies to achieve their destabilizing objectives. The Pakistani nation, with its rich history of resilience and unwavering patriotism, has categorically rejected these heinous and baseless narratives. The people of Pakistan are not naive, and they are fully capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, especially when it concerns the defence and integrity of their homeland. The anger expressed on social media and in public gatherings shows that the public is fully aware of the sacrifices made by the armed forces. They recognize that the soldiers serving on the borders are the nation’s heroes and that any attack on them is an attack on the country itself. This widespread public condemnation has actually served to strengthen the bond between the people and the military. The false narratives, instead of creating doubt, have opened the eyes of the nation even further and have made it easier for the average citizen to differentiate between those who work for the country’s prosperity and those who, driven by selfish political interests, are willing to jeopardize the nation’s security for their own gain. The people are demanding that strict action be taken against all such elements, regardless of their political background or connections. They believe that the law must take its course and that such individuals must be held accountable for their words and actions. The unity and resilience of the Pakistani nation remain unshakable, and such cowardly attempts to create discord and spread lies will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the people to defend their motherland and its institutions. The state is determined to protect its ideological and geographical frontiers, and with the full backing of its patriotic populace, it will successfully thwart all such attempts to undermine its stability and sovereignty.

In both Pakistan and India, what citizens are resisting is no longer standard party politics, it is the structural weaponization of the state. In India, political movements that emerged from populist or anti-corruption roots, like the Cockroach Party,  Aam Aadmi Party, along with regional dissenters, activists, and journalists, have faced arbitrary arrests, custodial pressures, and continuous raids by central agencies. In Pakistan, the state’s military-civilian establishment has used mass roundups, military trials for civilians, social media blackouts, and political bans to strip away electoral mandates and crush dissent. The torture, surveillance, and intimidation targeted at ordinary organizers and political workers across both borders mirror each other. The state’s goal in both contexts is identical, to make the cost of resistance so high that the public submits out of sheer exhaustion. Is It Time to Change? The short answer is, It is long overdue, but swapping rulers will change nothing. For decades, the public in both nations has been trapped in a cyclical trap. In Pakistan, people rally behind one party to remove the military-backed regime, only for the new government to use the exact same military apparatus to crush the next opposition. In India, hyper nationalism and state control have been normalized to the point where institutional checks, courts, enforcement agencies, and investigative bodies have lost their neutrality. If “change” simply means voting in a different political party while leaving the underlying security state and unchecked executive powers intact, the fascism simply changes its coat. True change requires dismantling the tools of authoritarianism, not just replacing the hands holding them. To actually break this cycle of state suppression in South Asia, three fundamental shifts must take place from the ground . As long as investigative agencies, financial crime bureaus, and intelligence services answer directly to political  bosses, they will be used as weapons of torture and political elimination. The primary demand of any genuine popular movement must be strict, legally enforced operational independence for courts, election commissions, and law enforcement.Parties, whether AAP, Cockroach Party, PTI, Congress, or regional blocs, are vehicles, not saviors. Authoritarian regimes thrive on divide-and-rule tactics, convincing one group to applaud when their political rival is jailed. The public must build non-partisan civil fronts where an attack on any citizen’s fundamental right, journalist’s freedom, or political worker’s safety is met with collective public outrage, regardless of party allegiance.Fascist narratives in South Asia rely heavily on manufactured enemies, hyper nationalist rhetoric, and national security panics to justify state overreach. Resistance movements break this spell when they relentlessly ground the conversation in tangible economic survival,inflation, labor rights, land grabs, and local self-governance. When the public realizes that state coercion is being used to mask economic failure, the moral authority of the regime collapses. The resilience of the people in both countries is undeniable, they continue to take to the streets despite jail, violence, and state power. But for that resilience to yield real liberation, the focus must shift from merely fighting for individual leaders to systematically dismantling the legal and institutional machinery that makes fascism possible in the first place.

By Muhammad Imran, Staff Member, SAHSOL-LUMS and Asma Rahmat, Final Year Law Student, SLC, Superior University and Muhammad Ameer Hamza, Final Year Law Student, SLC, Superior University    Historical Evolution and Constitutional Recognition: The right to a fair trial and due process is expressly guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which was inserted through the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed by the National Assembly on 8 April 2010, approved by the Senate on 15 April 2010, and received the assent of the President on 19 April 2010, whereupon it came into force. The insertion of Article 10A marked one of the most significant constitutional reforms introduced by the Eighteenth Amendment by expressly recognizing the right to a fair trial and due process as enforceable fundamental rights. Before the insertion of Article 10A, the Constitution did not contain an explicit guarantee of the right to a fair trial. Nevertheless, the superior judiciary consistently interpreted Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution as implicitly incorporating the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and due process. Article 4 guarantees the right of every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law, Article 9 protects the security of person, and Article 25 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Through an evolving body of constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acknowledged that fairness in legal proceedings constituted an indispensable component of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. However, the absence of an express constitutional guarantee often created uncertainty regarding the precise scope and enforceability of these procedural protections. The insertion of Article 10A fundamentally transformed Pakistan’s constitutional framework by elevating the right to a fair trial and due process into an independent and directly enforceable fundamental right. It converted principles previously implied through judicial interpretation into an explicit constitutional mandate, thereby strengthening the protection of individual liberties, reinforcing constitutional supremacy, and enhancing judicial oversight. Moreover, the amendment reflects Pakistan’s commitment to internationally recognized human rights standards, particularly Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Scope and Nature of Article 10A: Article 10A provides that: “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.” The language of Article 10A demonstrates that its protection is not confined to criminal prosecutions. Rather, it extends equally to civil proceedings and all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings in which legal rights and obligations are determined. Consequently, the constitutional guarantee encompasses the entire continuum of justice, including investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, appeal, and review. The constitutional requirement of “due process” ensures that every stage of legal proceedings must be conducted in accordance with established legal procedures, free from arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fide exercise of power, or abuse of authority. Essential Components of the Right to Fair Trial: The right to a fair trial under Article 10A embodies a comprehensive set of procedural safeguards that are indispensable for the administration of justice. These include the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the right to be informed promptly and clearly of the accusations, the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, the right to legal representation by counsel of one’s own choosing, the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, the right to produce evidence in defence, and the entitlement to a public hearing before an independent, impartial, and competent tribunal established by law. Equally important is the obligation that judicial decisions be reasoned, evidence-based, and transparent. The requirement to provide reasoned judgments promotes accountability, facilitates appellate review, enhances public confidence in the administration of justice, and ensures that justice is not only done but is also manifestly seen to be done. Relationship with Other Constitutional Guarantees: Article 10A does not operate in isolation but forms part of a broader constitutional framework safeguarding individual liberty and procedural justice. Article 4 guarantees that every individual shall be treated strictly in accordance with law, while Article 9 protects the fundamental rights to life and liberty. Article 10 provides specific procedural safeguards relating to arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to consult legal counsel, and the right to be produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours. Article 25 further guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Read harmoniously, these constitutional provisions establish an integrated framework designed to prevent arbitrary state action, ensure accountability of public authorities, and uphold fairness throughout the legal process. Judicial Interpretation of Article 10A: The superior judiciary has consistently interpreted Article 10A as embodying both procedural and substantive dimensions of justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly emphasized that compliance with Article 10A requires more than mere adherence to technical procedural formalities; rather, fairness must permeate every stage of legal proceedings. Investigations, collection of evidence, prosecution, trial, sentencing, and appellate review must all satisfy constitutional standards of due process. The courts have further held that statutory provisions or executive actions inconsistent with Article 10A are subject to constitutional scrutiny and may be declared unconstitutional where they undermine the fundamental right to a fair trial. Consequently, Article 10A has become a cornerstone of Pakistan’s constitutional jurisprudence, guiding judicial review in criminal justice, administrative law, disciplinary proceedings, and civil litigation. Constitutional Significance: The constitutional recognition of the right to a fair trial has significantly strengthened Pakistan’s legal system by providing an effective safeguard against arbitrary exercise of state power. It protects individuals against unlawful convictions, promotes judicial accountability, enhances public confidence in legal institutions, and reinforces the supremacy of the rule of law. Simultaneously, it serves as an important constitutional mechanism for balancing society’s interest in the effective prosecution of crime with the fundamental rights

 The Ebola outbreak in DRC is not getting the required traction from the world despite being categorized as the fastest growing infection so far recorded by the World Health Organization (WHO). Before diving deep into the threats posed by this disease, it is imperative to provide the readers with an overview of this viral infection. An Overview of Ebola Outbreak The Bundibugyo virus, one of the Orthoebolavirus species is responsible for causing severe Ebola disease known as Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD). It is a zoonotic disease, with fruit bats suspected to be the natural reservoir.  With the close contact of a human to the blood or secretions of infected wildlife (including bats or non-human primates), the human gets the infection. Consequently, the infection spreads from one human to other through direct contact with the blood, bodily secretions, and organs of the infected ones. The viral infection can also spread through close contact with the surfaces and materials contaminated with the bodily secretions of the infected individuals. Very similar to the Corona virus, the spread of this infection is particularly high in health-care settings having inadequate sterilization measures in place. Moreover, a direct contact with the infected deceased individuals during their burial can contribute to its spread as well. Incubation period and Clinical symptoms The incubation period for BVD ranges from 2 to 21 days, and infected individuals are not infectious until symptom onset. Fever, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and sore throat may represent as the early symptoms of this disease. But the non-specific nature of these symptoms often makes the diagnosis difficult resulting in delayed detection. Without early detection, the symptoms of this disease aggravate leading to gastrointestinal symptoms and organ dysfunction. In some cases, haemorrhagic manifestations may also occur in the infected individuals. Diagnosis and Treatment In the absence of confirmatory tests such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) or antigen- or antibody-based assays in the laboratory, it becomes a challenge for the health care professionals to differentiate BVD from other endemic febrile illnesses such as malaria. Outbreak control depends on early detection, isolation and care, contact tracing, safe burials and strong community engagement. Since there are no approved vaccines or specific treatments available for BVD, the current mortality rate of 44% to 46% for this disease poses a great threat to the affected communities. Current situation of Ebola outbreak Ebola, which spreads through contact with bodily fluids and causes a hemorrhagic fever, has killed more than 15,000 people in Africa over the past 50 years. As per the reports of international media outlets, the Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has spread to sixth province as death toll passes 2,100 with 4665 confirmed Ebola cases. The World Health Organization has already warned about its pace- the Ebola epidemic, already the deadliest in the country’s history, is spreading faster than any previous Ebola outbreak. Until now, five Congolese provinces had recorded cases: Ituri, which borders Uganda and South Sudan, North Kivu and South Kivu, Haut-Uélé and Tshopo. The risk of cross-border spread of this infection primarily to Uganda and South Sudan is very high. To make things worse, the response to contain this virus in the DRC is hampered by stretched health services, insufficient clean water and safe toilets. Some of the provinces where Ebola is present are densely populated and have only a weak government presence and largely lacking health infrastructure. North Kivu and South Kivu are also split by the front lines between the Congolese army and the anti-government armed group M23, backed by Rwanda, which has seized vast swathes of territory. This makes the conflict-ridden territory extremely prone to viral spread. Should we be worried? According to WHO official statement, the organization hopes to reverse the spread of this deadly virus in DRC within a span of three months with proper medical intervention. However, the pace with which it is spreading within DRC and bordering areas, it is quintessential to take some preventive measures. Since the globalization of the world was primarily responsible for Covid-19 pandemic, it is essential to have preparedness in advance. The healthcare authorities should establish proper communication channel with their counterparts in DRC to have real time data in hand. Similarly, a stock of screening kits should be maintained in the repository. In our airports and seaports, no preventive measures are in place for the screening of any such disease. To put things into perspective, our agencies working in the airports handle body search of persons and their belongings with no protective gears. They do not even wear any mask while dealing with international flights. Most of the time, those passengers who present with clinical symptoms of disease like coughing, flu or fever tend to wear no mask. This puts the fellow passengers and the airport authorities at risk of many diseases. Therefore, the government should take proper measures in this regard. The seaport and airport personnel should be trained to wear masks and protective gear while handling the flights coming from DRC directly or indirectly. Proper screening booths should be installed having health care professionals equipped with medical kits and personal protective gear. There should be proper sanitization within the airports and seaports vicinities. All these measures will put us in a better position to prevent many contagious diseases beforehand. Prevention should be the top most priority of our health care system only then we can envisage a healthy future. In the end, let us hope the viral infection in DRC subsides before getting out of control.