ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani chief justice’s statement on Saturday about why he is intervening in the executive domain has triggered a debate about whether "judicial activism" is a step toward providing speedy justice in the country.
Saqib Nisar said he did not intend to intervene in the work of the executive, but “was compelled to do so due to the poor state of affairs.”
Sen. Mushahidullah Khan of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) said the Supreme Court should focus on clearing its backlog of more than 3 million cases instead of interfering in the executive domain by taking suo motu notices on petty issues.
“The Supreme Court is custodian of the constitution, which doesn’t allow it to try to address issues pertaining to governance in the center and the provinces,” he told Arab News.
The apex court should focus on dispensing timely justice to the people, as this will increase its integrity and respect within society, he added.
“We don’t want to undermine the authority of any institution, including the Supreme Court, but we can’t allow it to usurp executive powers under the garb of judicial activism,” he said.
Khan acknowledged flaws in governance, but said Pakistan’s judiciary is full of “weaknesses.”
He added: “Instead of trying to correct each other, every institution should perform within the parameters of the constitution for the betterment of the country.”
He vowed to introduce judicial reforms to address all these issues if his party retains power following the upcoming general elections.
Habibullah Khan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, expressed support for its intervention in the work of the executive, saying: “Politicians and Parliament have failed to respond to problems of the common man.”
If all institutions were working to address issues faced by the public, the judiciary would not have been burdened with tens of thousands of cases, he added.
“The Supreme Court’s interference in the work of the executive should be a wakeup call for elected representatives of the people,” he said. “If the executive does not do its job, then other institutions will try to fill the vacuum.”
The constitution also allows the court to take notice of matters that come directly under the ambit of fundamental human rights, Habibullah added.
“Under the constitution, the superior courts can also interfere in public-interest litigation for the provision of speedy justice,” he said.
Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a well-known political analyst, said superior courts worldwide take notice of public issues when governments fail to address them.
“The Supreme Court is not doing anything unusual,” he said. “It is the duty of the court to protect the fundamental rights of the people, and direct the executive to do what is necessary.”
A state cannot survive if both Parliament and the apex court fail to address genuine public grievances, Rais said.
“There should not be a power struggle between the institutions. Rather, they should cooperate with each other to improve the state of affairs,” he added.
Tahir Malik, a public university professor and political analyst, said the government should strengthen institutions, including Parliament, by introducing reforms, which is the only way to address complaints regarding judicial activism.
“Mere political statements and rhetoric for public consumption regarding judicial overreach are going to make no difference,” he said.
“The federal and provincial governments need to improve their governance to counter interference in their work by other institutions.”
Pakistan chief justice sparks debate over ‘judicial activism’
Pakistan chief justice sparks debate over ‘judicial activism’
Cuba’s president says no current talks with the US following Trump’s threats
- Cuba was receiving an estimated 35,000 barrels a day from Venezuela before the US attacked, along with some 5,500 barrels daily from Mexico and roughly 7,500 from Russia, according to Jorge Piñón of the Energy Institute
HAVANA: Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said Monday that his administration is not in talks with the US government, a day after President Donald Trump threatened the Caribbean island in the wake of the US attack on Venezuela.
Díaz-Canel posted a flurry of brief statements on X after Trump suggested that Cuba “make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.” He did not say what kind of deal.
Díaz-Canel wrote that for “relations between the US and Cuba to progress, they must be based on international law rather than hostility, threats, and economic coercion.”
He added: “We have always been willing to hold a serious and responsible dialogue with the various US governments, including the current one, on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, principles of International Law, and mutual benefit without interference in internal affairs and with full respect for our independence.”
His statements were reposted by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez on X.
A key lifeline severed
On Sunday, Trump wrote that Cuba would no longer live off oil and money from Venezuela, which the US attacked on Jan. 3 in a stunning operation that killed 32 Cuban officers and led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro.
Cuba was receiving an estimated 35,000 barrels a day from Venezuela before the US attacked, along with some 5,500 barrels daily from Mexico and roughly 7,500 from Russia, according to Jorge Piñón of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, who tracks the shipments.
On Monday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum once again declined to provide data on current oil shipments or say whether such shipments would increase when Venezuelan supplies end. She insisted that the aid “has been ongoing for a long time; it’s not new.”
Sheinbaum said Mexico’s fuel supply to Cuba is not a concern for her country because “there is enough oil” — even though production of state-owned oil company Petróleos Mexicanos is steadily declining. She reiterated that her government is willing to facilitate dialogue between the US and Cuba if both agree.
Even with oil shipments from Venezuela, widespread blackouts have persisted across Cuba given fuel shortages and a crumbling electric grid. Experts worry a lack of petroleum would only deepen the island’s multiple crises that stem from an economic paralysis during the COVID-19 pandemic and a radical increase in US sanctions following the first Trump administration, which aim to force a change in Cuba’s political model.
The communist government has said US sanctions cost the country more than $7.5 billion between March 2024 and February 2025, a staggering sum for an island whose tourism revenue reached some $3 billion annually at its peak in the previous decade.
The crisis also has triggered a large wave of migration primarily to the United States, where Cubans enjoyed immigration privileges as exiles. Those privileges were curtailed before Trump closed US borders.
‘They didn’t even bring Cuban coffee’
The situation between the US and Cuba is “very sad and concerning,” said Andy S. Gómez, retired dean of the School of International Studies and senior fellow in Cuban Studies at the University of Miami.
He said he sees Díaz-Canel’s latest comments “as a way to try and buy a little bit of time for the inner circle to decide what steps it’s going to take.”
Gómez said he doesn’t visualize Cuba reaching out to US officials right now.
“They had every opportunity when President (Barack) Obama opened up US diplomatic relations, and yet they didn’t even bring Cuban coffee to the table,” Gómez said. “Of course, these are desperate times for Cuba.”
Michael Galant, senior research and outreach associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., said he believes Cuba might be willing to negotiate.
“Cuba has been interested in finding ways to ease sanctions,” he said. “It’s not that Cuba is uncooperative.”
Galant said topics for discussion could include migration and security, adding that he believes Trump is not in a hurry.
“Trump is hoping to deepen the economic crisis on the island, and there are few costs to Trump to try and wait that out,” he said. “I don’t think it’s likely that there will be any dramatic action in the coming days because there is no rush to come to the table.”
Cuba’s president stressed on X that “there are no talks with the US government, except for technical contacts in the area of migration.”
As tensions remained heightened, life went on as usual for many Cubans, although some were more concerned than others.
Oreidy Guzmán, a 32- year-old food delivery person, said he doesn’t want anything bad to happen to Cubans, “but if something has to happen, the people deserve change.”
Meanwhile, 37-year-old homemaker Meilyn Gómez said that while she doesn’t believe the US would invade Cuba, she was preparing for any possible outcome under Trump: “He’ll find entertainment anywhere.”
The current situation is dominating chatter among Cubans on the island and beyond.
“Cuban people talk and talk,” said 57-year-old bartender Rubén Benítez, “but to be honest, eleven, eight or nine million will take to the streets to defend what little we have left.”
