DAWN Editorials 17th September 2026

Court vs court

A SUPREME Court order directing the hospitalisation of former prime minister Imran Khan for medical tests and treatment has now turned into a much bigger crisis than anyone anticipated.

After the court’s original order was disregarded by the government, like so many others before it, the matter landed before the Federal Constitutional Court via a separate case filed by three other Adiala inmates seeking similar treatment. The FCC has since taken control of the Imran Khan hospitalisation case as well, much to the SC’s chagrin.

To observers, the FCC’s move directly challenges a May ruling issued by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, in which he had described the SC and FCC as “coordinate courts exercising clearly demarcated jurisdictions over distinct matters”. However, the current dispute underlines a clear jurisdictional collision between the two courts, which still seem rather uncertain regarding what each is supposed to be doing since the 27th Amendment.

At the heart of the crisis is the 27th Amendment, which had substantially rearranged constitutional jurisdiction by creating a completely new judicial forum, the FCC, and placing major constitutional questions and fundamental rights matters within its domain. The FCC invoked that same jurisdiction days ago to summon the complete records of cases concerning Mr Khan’s hospital transfer from the SC, indicating that it intended to frame the matter as a question of determining whether prisoners are constitutionally entitled to such treatment.

However, it then went a step further and also fixed the case before itself. To its credit, the SC has responded with restraint. The three-member bench hearing the case merely remarked that the FCC’s order had raised “considerable legal and constitutional significance” and then adjourned for three weeks while seeking comment from the attorney general over whether the FCC’s order was, indeed, binding on the SC. Mr Khan’s hospitalisation, of course, seems moot at this point.

Perhaps matters were bound to arrive at this juncture thanks to the undue haste with which the 27th Amendment was foisted upon the nation. It appears that its text never settled the matter of what happens when a constitutional question arises in an ongoing SC case, especially when such a case pertains to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, which are very much within the SC’s remit.

It is even more remarkable that a crisis of this nature has erupted at the highest level of the judiciary over what was otherwise a rather straightforward order to transfer an ailing prisoner to a hospital and get them the treatment required. It is certainly not a good look for the current dispensation that the fragility of the architecture that props it up keeps being exposed, and over matters that ought to be minor in perspective.

Published in Dawn, September 18th, 2026

Star wars

THE Trump administration is known for its maverick behaviour, bordering on recklessness, that throws international conventions out of the window. The latest example of this is the announcement by the US that it has deployed weapons in space. This is hardly a disclosure, but it brings on the record what many around the world already knew. Though no specifics are available regarding the space-based weaponry, American officials say they include “kinetic and non-kinetic” capabilities. The attempt to weaponise space goes back to the Cold War. The Reagan administration had poured billions of dollars into the ‘Star Wars’ programme in order to stay ahead of the Soviets, yet no actual weapons were deployed. But with the American admission that they have weapons in the cosmos, other states with similar capabilities could also consider their options. Expectedly, China and Russia have come down hard on the US following the admission. The Chinese foreign ministry has criticised the “weaponisation of outer space” and warned against an arms race, while the Kremlin has called for “the complete demilitarisation of space”. Interestingly, while Beijing and Moscow want weapons to be kept out of space, the Western states reportedly favour “responsible behaviour” regarding such weaponry.

As it is, there have been frightening advances in weaponry globally. For example, today’s nuclear weapons are much more powerful than their predecessors deployed in World War II. Moreover, the development of AI-based autonomous weapons systems — also known as ‘killer robots’ — should serve as a wakeup call for all people of conscience. If these grim developments are coupled with the state of the world geopolitically, then a freeze in the deployment of destructive weapons, such as arms in space, is essential. The US should seriously reconsider its deployment of weapons in outer space. The threat of an arms race in the cosmos is very real; if Beijing and Moscow feel an existential threat from American weapons, they too could deploy weapons of their own. Though the current US administration has itself destroyed the global ‘rules-based order’ that prevailed post-World War II, the threat weapons in space — and other such destructive systems — pose to humanity, should make Washington reconsider this decision.

Published in Dawn, September 18th, 2026

Sugar threat

THE sugar industry has renewed pressure on the government for permission to export 1m tonnes of sugar. Millers say they may delay the next crushing season unless the government complies. It is not a request or demand; it is a threat. The Pakistan Sugar Mills Association projects a 1.25m tonne surplus. That number needs independent verification. Sugar millers do not have a clean record on stock reporting. They have been accused repeatedly of inflating surpluses to obtain export permission. Past inquiries have flagged manipulation and coordination among them. None of that makes industry estimates a reliable basis for policy.

The export track record itself is the strongest argument for caution. Each time exports have been approved, shortages have followed, with the government importing sugar to fix the mess it created by exporting the commodity. Selling a ‘surplus’ abroad only to buy it back later at a higher price is not trade policy. It is a subsidy for politically influential sugar producers. The government should avoid extremes. It should refrain from imposing an outright export ban or greenlighting the export of 1m tonnes on the industry’s pressure. If independent verification confirms a surplus, it can be exported in tranches. More exports can be approved only if the data shows that the local supply is holding up. That said, deregulation of the sugar sector is the real, long-term fix — not case-by-case export permissions but a supply chain that is freed end to end. The market should set the price of cane and sugar, while imports and exports must be run according to fixed rules and not at political discretion. For this, the industry must open its books for independent checks to verify stock claims, and be exposed to real competition, instead of operating as a tight-knit cartel. In such a scenario, millers will not need to issue threats; a functioning market would give them what they want. And farmers would no longer find themselves in the crossfire.

Published in Dawn, September 18th, 2026