February 8, 2026
LAHORE
A critical discussion at the Asma Jahangir Conference 2026, examined the role of Pakistan’s legal fraternity in safeguarding democracy. The session, titled “The Role of the Bar in Pakistan’s Movement for Democracy,” examined the historic and contemporary struggle by bar councils and its role in resisting authoritarianism, safeguarding constitutional supremacy, and defending judicial independence. However, the panelists also expressed concern over growing polarization within the bar bodies and a shrinking democratic space in the country.
The session was moderated by former President of the Karachi Bar Association Salahuddin Ahmed, and featured former Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Akhtar Hussain, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Ahsan Bhoon, and Advocate of the Supreme Court Danish Afridi. It was held on the second day of the 6th AJCONF, which was organized by the Asma Jahangir Legal Aid Cell (AGHS) with the support of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan (SCBAP).
Danish Afridi, Advocate of the Supreme Court, highlighted the bar councils’ long-standing opposition to martial law and other extra-constitutional measures, noting their active role in defending democratic order.
“Bar councils have never accepted martial law,” he said. “In fact they have consistently protested against it, and have always stood for democracy in Pakistan.”
He said that while lawyers were allowed to support political parties, their ultimate loyalty must remain with the Constitution and fundamental rights.
“Lawyers should serve as a support for political parties, but when political parties act wrongly and threaten people’s fundamental rights, the bar council must raise its voice against them . Lawyers must advocate for justice regardless of their political affiliations.”
Meanwhile Akhtar Hussain, former Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, broadened the discussion by questioning what he said were narrow definitions of democracy.
“Democracy does not just mean organizing elections and electing representatives,” he remarked. “There have also been elections held under martial laws. True democracy means a sovereign parliament, an independent judiciary, and a free press.”
He argued that bar councils must focus not only on political transitions but also on structural and constitutional issues.
He cautioned that although the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to citizens, these guarantees are not being effectively enforced. As an example, he referred to Article 25-A, noting that while education is recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan, nearly 25 million children remain out of school — a failure that demands urgent attention from the legal community.
“These are the sort of issues we must raise in bar councils,” he said.
Hussain also warned of increasing restrictions on civic space and institutional independence.
“There are so many restrictions today that we cannot hold meetings of more than 50 people, even inside press clubs. Freedom of expression is dangerously curtailed. The Supreme Court no longer functions with the independence and authority it once had. Struggling against these ‘black’ laws, upholding the Constitution, and striving for the independence of the judiciary should remain on the main agenda of lawyers, regardless of their political affiliations.”
He added that as the establishment expands its control over businesses and other sectors, and democracy comes under pressure, its protection cannot be left solely to the bar; political parties must also take action.
Ahsan Bhoon, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, reflected on the bar’s historic unity during moments of constitutional breakdown, particularly in movements for the restoration of the judiciary. However, he questioned the growing polarization within bar bodies.
“The bar should not behave like a political party. We have seen its role become critical whenever there was an attack on the Constitution. The bar has, historically, collectively stood for the restoration and independence of the judiciary. But why is the bar divided today? Political parties have used certain arms of the bar for their own political benefits, and as a result, it has become polarized,” he said.
During the session, the moderator, Salahuddin Ahmed, reminded Bhoon that he heads the Asma Jahangir Group within the bar and that Asma Jahangir was widely known for her firm stance against military interference in civilian affairs and had challenged the earlier decision of the PMLN government to try civilians in militray courts. Responding to that question, Ahsan Bhoon clearly stated that civilians must not be tried in military courts, asserting that military courts undermine the principles of fair trial and due process. He maintained that a democratic system must function without interference from non-elected institutions.
The moderator Ahmed also referred to remarks made a week earlier by Supreme Court Bar Association President Haroon ur Rashid, who had said in an interview that the sentence awarded to Imaan Mazari was justified and that those criticizing state institutions should face similar punishment. He asked how such an ideological gap had emerged within the group. In response, Bhoon said he personally believed such sentences were neither fair nor justified. He recalled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s statement that even a “grotesque murderer” has the right to a fair trial. Bhoon added that he had contacted Islamabad High Court Bar Association President Wajid Gillani and requested that every possible legal assistance be provided to Imaan Mazari.
In his concluding remarks moderator Salahuddin Ahmed, former President of the Karachi Bar Association, underscored that the bar has an essential role in Pakistan’s ongoing struggle for democracy. He emphasized that the legal fraternity must rise above partisan alignments and speak vociferously and independently on issues relating to fair trial, judicial independence, and freedom of speech, particularly in light of what he described as regressive and repressive political trends.