In a move that has ignited intense controversy, a delegation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led by Joel Turkewitz, recently met with the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi. This meeting is not only unprecedented but also deeply troubling, as it challenges the fundamental principles of judicial independence and national sovereignty. The very notion of a chief justice engaging directly with an international financial institution is unheard of in democratic nations, raising urgent questions about Pakistan’s governance, the judiciary’s role, and the growing influence of foreign entities in domestic affairs.
The judiciary, by definition, is supposed to be an impartial and independent institution that administers justice without external interference. The mere occurrence of this meeting suggests an alarming reality—Pakistan’s financial crisis has reached a stage where even its judicial institutions are being drawn into discussions traditionally reserved for the executive branch. The IMF’s usual counterparts in any country are the Ministry of Finance and economic policymakers. That the IMF delegation met with the CJP indicates a blurring of institutional boundaries, with international financial bodies seemingly overstepping their role and engaging with Pakistan’s judiciary in a manner that could undermine its independence.
According to a Supreme Court press release, Chief Justice Afridi provided an overview of “ongoing efforts to enhance judicial performance.” This raises a critical question—why would an international lender, whose primary focus is on economic policy, be concerned with judicial reforms? The IMF’s interest in Pakistan’s legal framework could signal an increasing role in shaping not only the country’s economic policies but also its judicial processes, which should be strictly off-limits for any foreign institution. While it is understandable that the IMF seeks to ensure Pakistan’s adherence to its financial commitments under the $7 billion bailout package, any involvement in judicial affairs is a dangerous precedent that threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Equally troubling is CJP Afridi’s acknowledgment that the judiciary is not accustomed to such direct engagements with financial bodies but did so upon the Finance Division’s request. If this is true, it reflects poorly on Pakistan’s political leadership, which should never have allowed the judiciary to be placed in a position where it must answer to international financial stakeholders. Such a scenario raises fundamental concerns about the erosion of national institutions and the increasing pressure being exerted on Pakistan by foreign entities due to its economic vulnerabilities.
This is not the first time Pakistan’s judiciary has had to defend its position in response to international scrutiny. In May 2024, former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa wrote a letter to the British government after it criticized the Supreme Court’s decisions and its role in upholding democracy. Justice Isa had to justify the judiciary’s commitment to democracy and an open society in Pakistan. That the judiciary is being repeatedly compelled to explain itself to foreign entities further indicates a deteriorating perception of its independence. Such instances not only damage the credibility of the judiciary but also reinforce concerns about the extent of external influence over Pakistan’s institutions.
Chief Justice Afridi’s justification for the meeting is also problematic. He assured that he was “quite guarded” in his comments and views, yet the fact remains that the judiciary was directly involved in discussions that should have been confined to the executive and legislative branches. Even during a separate press conference, he reiterated that he had informed the IMF delegation that Pakistan’s judiciary operates independently under the Constitution. However, verbal assurances of independence mean little when the very act of engaging with an international financial institution on governance matters contradicts the principles of judicial impartiality.
Further complicating matters, reports indicate that the IMF delegation emphasized the need for stronger protections for foreign investment and property rights in Pakistan. These are economic and legislative concerns that fall under the jurisdiction of the government, not the judiciary. The mere fact that an international financial institution felt compelled to directly engage the judiciary on such matters underscores how deeply Pakistan’s economic crisis has intertwined itself with its legal and governance structures. This development sets a worrying precedent—if financial institutions can directly engage with the judiciary today, what prevents them from exerting influence over judicial decisions tomorrow?
Predictably, the meeting has sparked strong criticism from opposition leaders and civil society. Noor Alam Khan, a member of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), questioned under what capacity the IMF delegation had met with CJP Afridi. His concerns are entirely justified—there is no constitutional or legal provision that authorizes such interactions. Opposition figures have also voiced concerns that such meetings pave the way for greater external interference in Pakistan’s governance, weakening the country’s institutional integrity.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, when pressed on the matter, responded vaguely, stating that the meeting had likely occurred with the consent of “relevant authorities.” This ambiguous response only adds to the perception that Pakistan’s institutions are increasingly succumbing to external pressures. Instead of providing clarity, such evasive statements fuel speculation that major policy decisions are being made without public accountability.
Civil society organizations have also raised alarms about the broader implications of this meeting. If Pakistan’s judiciary is perceived as being influenced by international financial bodies, it risks losing public confidence in its impartiality. Any judiciary that appears compromised—whether by domestic or foreign influences—risks undermining its ability to dispense justice fairly, particularly in cases involving economic disputes and foreign investments. The judiciary must remain a bastion of impartiality, and engaging with foreign financial institutions sets a precedent that could prove damaging in the long run.
In another concerning development, the IMF mission had also arranged to meet with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). According to sources, the IMF invited SCBA officials to a private hotel for discussions, but SCBA President Mian Rauf Atta declined the invitation, stating that such a meeting should only take place at the Supreme Court building. This move by the SCBA is significant—it reflects a clear stance that the judiciary and legal institutions should not be involved in private or informal dealings with financial entities. By refusing to meet at a private venue, the SCBA has set an important precedent in pushing back against unnecessary external involvement in Pakistan’s legal affairs.
Amid these troubling developments, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has further escalated the issue by writing a letter to the IMF delegation. The letter, written by National Assembly Opposition Leader Omar Ayub Khan and addressed to Mahir Binici, an economist in the IMF’s strategy and policy review department, highlighted concerns about the 2024 elections and alleged manipulation of the democratic process. PTI’s move to seek international intervention in domestic matters is yet another indication of the deteriorating state of governance in Pakistan. While opposition parties have a right to raise concerns, turning to foreign institutions to address internal political issues further erodes national sovereignty and invites greater interference in domestic affairs.
The entire episode underscores the deep-rooted governance crisis in Pakistan. The fact that the judiciary has been dragged into engagements with the IMF reflects a broader failure of political leadership. Pakistan’s economic struggles are undeniable, but instead of enacting meaningful financial reforms, the government appears to be pulling other state institutions into the crisis, thereby weakening them further.
The IMF is not a diplomatic entity—it is a financial institution whose primary goal is to secure loan repayments and enforce strict economic conditions. That it felt the need to engage with Pakistan’s judiciary suggests a serious lack of confidence in the country’s governance structures. Such engagements should never have been necessary if Pakistan’s executive and legislative institutions had been functioning effectively. If these practices continue, Pakistan risks further undermining its sovereignty, as international institutions may start dictating not only economic policies but also the functioning of its legal system.
Moving forward, the government must take immediate steps to ensure that all interactions with global financial institutions remain strictly within the purview of the Ministry of Finance and economic policymakers. The judiciary’s independence must be safeguarded at all costs. Judicial institutions should never be placed in a position where they are forced to engage with foreign financial bodies, as this compromises both their integrity and public trust.
Pakistan is at a critical juncture where it must carefully navigate its economic crisis without sacrificing the fundamental principles of democratic governance. The judiciary must remain an independent institution that upholds justice without external pressures. Any deviation from this principle would be a betrayal of constitutional values and a dangerous precedent for the country’s future.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Coverpage’s editorial stance.
