Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Senator Ali Zafar has expressed his view that the recent judicial appointments would affect the government’s talks with the International Monetary Fund.

“There is a public perception that the government has made these transfers to appoint desired judges,” he said while appearing on News Insight with Amir Zia via video link on Monday. “This perception is increasing.”

An IMF delegation would visit Pakistan on February 20 before the next tranche is released. “These include fiscal governance, central bank governance and operations, financial sector oversight, market regulation, rule of law, and AML-CFT,” the finance ministry said and confirmed that a three-member IMF mission would visit Pakistan to conduct a Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment under the country’s 2024 Extended Fund Facility programme.

The nation, supported by a $7 billion IMF facility provided in September, is working towards economic recovery. The IMF plans to assess the country’s progress by March, with both the government and central bank optimistic about achieving their goals.

Earlier in the day, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan approved the appointment of six high court judges to the Supreme Court amid lawyers’ protest in Islamabad.

When asked, Zafar said that his party was concerned over the “crisis in the judiciary” after the seniority issue was raised in the Islamabad High Court.

He added that the five IHC judges also raised the issue after junior judges were transferred to other high courts.

“I maintained that it would be better to decide who would be the senior judge in the IHC, whether it would be from the existing judge or the transferred judges. That’s why we apologised and said we will not sit until you postpone this meeting.”

He went on to add that the judgement has different interpretations. “Article 200 of the Constitution allows you to transfer a judge on his will. The oath taken in the last court ends when you are transferred to a new court and you have to again take an oath in the new court. Your seniority is seen from the time you take oath in that high court.”

Zafar added that there was no solid example of such practices. “If it was about transfer and not about becoming the chief justice, it would not have been controversial.”