In Pakistan, the courtroom has increasingly become a theatre of political struggle—where language, more than law, determines outcomes. This phenomenon, often termed lawfare, involves the strategic use of legal discourse not to achieve justice, but to delegitimize opponents, delay dissent, and reinforce elite power structures.
Legal documents are rarely neutral. In the hands of politically motivated actors, the lexicon of legality is sharpened into a weapon. Words like “seditious,” “subversive,” “anti-state,” or “foreign-funded” carry enormous performative weight, functioning less as descriptive terms and more as ideological verdicts that render the accused guilty in public imagination long before a trial concludes.
The structure of legal language itself contributes to this weaponization. It is replete with passive constructions and abstract nouns: “It has been alleged...,” “Security considerations necessitate...,” “As per Article XYZ...” These phrases obscure agency and allow the state to act without ever naming the actor, diluting accountability while sustaining authority.
Moreover, ambiguity is institutionalized. Laws such as the Pakistan Penal Code’s Section 124-A (sedition), the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act contain language so elastic that almost any political expression can be construed as a criminal act. This legal malleability is not a bug—it is a feature, allowing selective application while maintaining the appearance of rule of law.
Courtroom rhetoric often mimics political propaganda. In high-profile cases, judges and prosecutors frequently invoke nationalist imagery, moral absolutes, or religious idioms to sanctify verdicts. Defendants are not merely individuals accused of wrongdoing—they are cast as threats to the nation, religion, or ‘moral order’. This judicial dramatization transforms legal proceedings into spectacles of loyalty and betrayal.
Media, especially prime-time television, acts as both amplifier and interpreter of this legal spectacle. Legal terms are simplified, politicized, and inserted into public discourse without nuance. Complex procedural matters are flattened into binary oppositions: patriot vs traitor, lawful vs criminal, reformer vs anarchist. Language, once again, becomes the battlefield.
Lawfare is also a game of silence. Delays in proceedings, sealed judgments, and the withholding of written verdicts are as consequential as the words themselves. The absence of clarity is a strategic ambiguity that benefits power by disorienting dissent and preventing mobilization.
Yet, legal discourse can also be reclaimed. Lawyers, journalists, and civil society actors have begun to demystify judicial language, challenging vague indictments, demanding access to judgments, and translating legalese into public argument. Their efforts represent a counter-lexis—an emerging vocabulary of resistance that insists on precision, transparency, and democratic interpretation.
In a just society, the law must speak clearly and equally. But in Pakistan’s political theatre, law too often whispers for the powerful and shouts at the powerless. The task ahead is not merely to reform institutions but to reclaim the language of justice from those who wield it as an instrument of repression.
