header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

The NLJ Column

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
22 November 2007
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

The legal profession has a duty to stand up to executive intimidation

When Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, declared emergency rule in his country, he told the nation that the measure was necessary to control growing Islamist extremism in Pakistan.

A significant feature of General Musharraf’s crack-down was the arrest and detention of judges and lawyers who he perceived as crippling his government.

EARLIER PRECEDENT

Musharraf is not the first leader to attack the judiciary in this way. An earlier precedent can be found in Egypt where over 1,000 judges threatened to boycott presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2005 unless the government took steps to control corruption, and even earlier in 1968 the judiciary was so outspoken about Nasser’s war policy that he dismissed them in what became known as the “massacre of the judiciary”.

More surprisingly, executive belligerence towards the judges and a determination to emaciate them of their powers has been demonstrated both in the US and the UK, the former by attempting to put detainees beyond the reach of the judges in Guantanamo Bay

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
NLJ this week: Arbitration’s fast lane—with guardrails
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll