Farhatullah Babar’s Heated Farewell Speech In Senate Are PPP & PMLN Uniting Against Judiciary?

PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar was rather unforgiving in his Farwell speech to Senate. During his final address to the upper house of the parliament, he threatened that a state within a state is forming, and if the parliament doesn’t play an active role in dismantling the de facto state, it will only lead to a collision in future.

Babar also took a rigid and controversial toll on other state institutions, especially judiciary, saying that they have played a role in negatively influencing and invading authority of the parliament. He warned specifically against judicialisation of politics and politicization of the judiciary, calling it concerning.

He further added that he is distressed over how initially all political parties were unanimous on the demanding across the board accountability – bringing members of military and judiciary in the ambit of accountability laws, but later everyone including his own party backtracked on it.
Babar said that the situation is getting worse and worse as there’s an obvious conflict between state institutions. He also said that the autonomy that was shifted to provinces under 18th amendment is now being rolled back which can be a threat to interprovincial harmony.


He added that Chief Justice of Pakistan claims that he has no political agenda. However, he himself is doubtful of that. Expressing his disapproval in extremely condemnatory remarks, Babar said that the situation has fallen down to an extent that judges use the weapon of contempt of court to protect themselves. He remarked that a wise man in his village says that the constitution is superior to parliament, but the wise man also says that constitution is not what is written but what he says.

What has raised eyebrows is his extremely critical opinion of the judiciary that somehow aligns with the reservations that PMLN previously has been vocal about. Although PPP has subsequently shown their detachment to Babar’s speech saying that it was an individual’s opinion, not the party’s, followed by his resignation as well, the party’s opinion about the role of the judiciary is muddled.

What are your thoughts on this? Let us know in the comments section below.

Featured Content⭐