IMF Delegation’s Meetings with Pakistani Officials Raise Concerns About Sovereignty

On February 11, an IMF delegation met with Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi, sharing details of the meeting with the press. Following this, today, the IMF delegation met with the Supreme Court Bar Association at a private hotel. This series of high-profile meetings raises a crucial question: Can such delegations freely meet various government officials in Pakistan?

When we posed this question to sources within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they acknowledged the existence of regulations in this regard. However, they added that the Ministry of Finance was responsible for initiating the meeting request with the Chief Justice. According to them, the government had granted the IMF delegation permission to meet with heads of different institutions and political parties.

While these meetings may seem harmless at first glance, some citizens have raised concerns that they may undermine Pakistan’s sovereignty. To understand the situation better, we sought the views of legal experts on this matter.

**Tradition Dictates Judges Should Not Meet Administrative Officials: Kamran Murtaza**

Renowned lawyer and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Senator, Kamran Murtaza, expressed his surprise over the IMF delegation’s meeting with the Chief Justice. Speaking to V News, Murtaza explained that while no law prohibits such meetings, the tradition is that judges do not meet with the administrative heads such as the Prime Minister or Chief Ministers. He found it highly unusual that the IMF delegation met with the Chief Justice.

Murtaza raised a pertinent question: “If the country is receiving a loan, the administrative leaders will manage its allocation, not the judicial system.” According to him, the IMF delegation’s meeting should have been restricted to administrative heads, not judicial figures. Murtaza further emphasized that if political certainty was required, the IMF delegation could have met with the political parties such as PML-N, PTI, or PPP, but meeting with the Chief Justice lacked any logical explanation.

**Meeting with the Chief Justice is Extraordinary: Ikran Chaudhry, Advocate**

Senior Supreme Court Advocate Ikran Chaudhry also acknowledged the unusual nature of this meeting but clarified that there were no legal barriers preventing such a meeting. In a conversation with V News, he stated, “While there is no legal prohibition, this meeting is certainly extraordinary.” He explained that the government’s pressing need for a loan installment might have prompted them to request this meeting with the Chief Justice. He further added that such meetings could be seen as a matter of embarrassment for the Chief Justice, given their implications.

Chaudhry mentioned that, typically, organizations like the IMF would consider a country’s political situation, human rights record, and other factors while assessing the loan request. These delegations usually hire private experts to advise them on these issues.

**IMF Delegation’s Meeting with the Chief Justice: Unusual, Says Barrister Jahangir Jadoon**

Former Advocate General of Islamabad, Barrister Jahangir Jadoon, also weighed in on the issue. In his discussion with V News, he described the IMF delegation’s meeting with the Chief Justice as “extraordinary.” He pointed out that there was no public standard operating procedure (SOP) for such meetings. Moreover, the role of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice is primarily judicial, with no direct connection to the administrative side of the government.

While there was no public interest that warranted such a meeting, Barrister Jadoon acknowledged that no legal restrictions existed. Nonetheless, he agreed that it was highly unusual for an IMF delegation to meet with the Chief Justice.

**Conclusion**

The meetings between the IMF delegation and high-ranking Pakistani officials, including the Chief Justice, have raised questions regarding Pakistan’s political sovereignty and the independence of its judiciary. Legal experts have varied opinions, with some deeming it an extraordinary and unorthodox practice, while others emphasize that it does not violate any laws. Nonetheless, the situation continues to spark public debate on the influence of international financial bodies on domestic affairs.