The 27th Amendment rewrites Pakistan’s rules and hands its courts and army to the powerful few.
According to Santiago Canton, the ICJ Secretary General, the 27th amendment introduces changes that raise serious concern. He warns that these shifts could weaken the courts’ role in checking executive power and compromise the basic rights of people in Pakistan.
Parliament has created a new Federal Constitutional Court and moved many core powers from the Supreme Court to that new body, including original jurisdiction over constitutional disputes and the transfer of all pending constitutional appeals and suo motu cases to the FCC.
Pakistan is already facing deep political strain, and any move that reduces judicial independence will only intensify public mistrust. Legal experts warn that once constitutional checks grow weak, governments tend to stretch their authority further, often at the cost of civil liberties. This amendment also arrives at a time when civic space is shrinking and voices questioning state decisions face growing pressure. If these trends continue, ordinary citizens will lose their last reliable shield against abuse of power, leaving the justice system unable to protect those who need it most.
That change is not a technical tweak. The FCC will be staffed by judges chosen under an altered appointments regime that gives the executive far greater control. High court judges can be shifted between provinces on presidential orders after a JCP recommendation, and a judge who refuses transfer may be deemed retired. These rules strip judges of institutional independence and make transfers a political tool rather than an administrative measure.
Parliament also removed the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers by deleting Articles 184, 186 and 191A. That change closes a potent front of public accountability that ordinary citizens and bar bodies used to reach the top bench quickly. The new arrangement reorders courts so that constitutional review sits behind a court whose judges are more directly tied to the executive.
Article 243 of the Constitution has been rewritten to create a post of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) to be held by the army chief. The amendment abolishes the Chairman Joint Chiefs (CJCSC) slot and concentrates command over the army, navy and air force under one figure. The move also creates a National Strategic Command for nuclear oversight, but crucially it locks the head of that command to appointments made in consultation with the army chief.
The bill grants five-star officers constitutional protections that are almost absolute. These officers keep rank and privileges for life and enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution that cannot be removed except by a two thirds parliamentary vote. That raises a stark inequality. Elected leaders remain removable by simple majority. The amendment gives permanent legal shelter to the uniformed elite and places civilian politicians at a structural disadvantage.
The personal fallout has been dramatic. Senior jurists reacted within hours. Two Supreme Court judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah tendered resignations in protest, calling the amendment a grave assault on the Constitution and saying they could not sit on a court reduced to a shadow of its former role. A senior member of the Law and Justice Commission and former Attorney General Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan also resigned. These departures are not routine. They mark a collapse of faith inside institutions meant to protect rights and law.
The manner of passage deepens the injury. The amendment moved through the cabinet and both houses in fast and contested sittings. The Senate vote came amid an opposition boycott and the National Assembly approved the bill by the numbers the ruling coalition mustered. Critics point to a lack of sincere debate, to rushed drafting and to last minute textual changes that favour continuity of political control rather than consensus rebuilding.
A particularly alarming detail in the file is the clause that secures the army chief’s position for an extended period. The record notes that Field Marshal Asim Munir will remain army chief and Chief of Defence Forces until 2030, a change that would make him the longest serving army chief without formal martial law. That is not symbolism. It is constitutional entrenchment of a single person’s dominance.
The political and social reaction has been mixed, but a strong current of alarm runs through lawyers civil society and parts of the public. International commentators and regional observers described the move as a major erosion of civilian control. Grassroots hashtags and street protests capture a sense of betrayal and fear that the formal rules of the republic have been rewritten to favour the khaki order.
Defenders argue the amendment unclogs court backlogs and modernises military coordination. They say a specialised FCC will speed constitutional adjudication and that a single defence chief can improve strategic command. Those arguments matter on paper, but they do not explain or justify the permanent legal shields and the transfer of appointment power from neutral bodies to political ones. The speed and balance of the reforms matter as much as their technical claims.
So where does Pakistan go from here? The amendment alters the field but it does not erase civic memory or legal debate. Courts that survive the political pressure can still interpret the text. Bar associations and civil rights groups can press cases that test the limits of immunity and transfer powers. Political parties and citizens can use every lawful tool to restore balance. The road will be long and fraught, but institutions are not dead unless everyone gives up.
In conclusion the 27th Amendment is a turning point. It rewrites the balance between people courts and the uniform. It makes impunity structural and places lasting authority in hands that answer first to the uniform not the ballot. That is the substance of the grievance judges lawyers and citizens now voice. If Pakistan is to survive as a republic governed by law the response must be calm smart and constitutional, not only loud. The work of repair must begin now.
Syed Salman Mehdi is a freelance writer and researcher with a keen interest in social, political, and human rights issues. He has written extensively on topics related to sectarian violence, governance, and minority rights, with a particular focus on South Asia. His work has been published in various media outlets, and he is passionate about raising awareness on critical human rights concerns. Read other articles by Syed. State and its pillars
Arifa Noor Published November 18, 2025
DAWN
NOW that the 27th Amendment has been passed, some in the legal profession and others are mourning the new subservience of the judiciary, going as far as to say that the third pillar of government has come crashing down.
Of course, what is less mourned, perhaps, is that the second pillar, parliament, is no longer standing upright either. Having been weakened over the years, it no longer functions as an independent branch either. It sits, stands and runs around in circles on cue — from the leadership of the political parties and the known unknowns. There were hints of it during the passage of the 18th Amendment but the slide began in earnest later — from the lightening-fast approval given to Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s extension to the present when constitutional amendments are passed within days. The ‘public representatives’ are led by the Pied Piper to the ‘ayes’ gallery when the vote is needed and there is little choice in the matter. And it doesn’t matter if they are sitting on the treasury benches or are in the opposition.
The executive may have had its hand strengthened by the recent legislation, but simply on paper. But its ability to make decisions is now a thing of the past. The only reason it is perhaps not discussed much is that its helplessness is hidden behind closed doors. In private rooms, it is hard to say who is chairing meetings or making the decisions. The capitulation is just not as public as in the case of the legislature even though the results are visible to all.
Indeed, there is little hope that any of the three pillars of the state are intact.
There is little hope that any of the three pillars of the state are intact.
But in the land of the pure, political theories remain just that — theories. Here, the pillars of the state weaken and crumble, straining just to stay upright but in our everyday lingo, the word ‘state’ is used to denote our respect and our acknowledgement of the power and influence of one institution. At times, we use the word also to concede our own vulnerability. But that is another story.
The state hasn’t been left untouched either. The 27th Amendment has brought sweeping reforms to the structure of the armed forces as well. Among other things, the new legislation has discontinued the joint chief position and introduced a new CDF, a position which will be held by the chief of army staff, who now appears to be far more than the ‘first among equals’. At the same time, the tenure of all services chiefs has been increased from three to five years. The head — COAS/CDF — has also been given lifetime immunity, like the president.
It is being said this will help prepare the armed forces for modern warfare and allow for the kind of coordination that was perhaps not possible earlier. Time and again, those who claim to understand how warfare works argue this, but their language explains little to those of us not in the know. These new changes will bring or improve combat readiness, synergy, multi-domain integration — though what this means in practical terms remains unclear to those of us who have never worn a uniform.
It is easier, however, to understand the far simpler concerns or worries that are being put forward.
There are fears that these changes may allow for centralisation of power in a single post/individual that is also above the law. Of course, some can argue that strong men who claimed to speak for or on behalf of the state were always above the law — the trial of Musharraf is a case in point — but now this has been put down on paper. But in a country such as Pakistan where checks on the ruling elite have always remained weak, the precedent being set by offering immunity to any government official is worrying. Others will want to follow suit in the future, as it will encourage decision-making without any fear of accountability.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, questions have been raised about what this will mean for the other two forces and their ability to make decisions or have their views heard if the perception of equality between all three forces is not acknowledged on paper. This, it is feared, will impact not just the morale but also decision-making.
How will it impact decisions about resource allocation, or decisions taken during times of conflict? Will the other services chiefs still be able to make their voice heard, ask some? Here, some insiders have mentioned the 2019 skirmish with India where they claim the then chief of army staff was outvoted when deciding the response to India. This account has been questioned, but as an anecdote it does urge more clarity on how decisions will be made. Will collegial decision-making, which some say has been at work till now, continue once the new structures are in place?
These questions are being asked partly because there is no transparent debate on the changes. If the discussions were open, such questions would not fester.
But beyond the powers, in Pakistan, there is always the worry about how the politics of any changes will play out. A case in point is the frenzied politicking over key non-political appointments as we have seen in the recent past. And one wonders that if powers are further centralised in new positions, whether it will encourage newcomers and aspirants to lobby in new and more aggressive ways for key positions as well as exceptional promotions. The long-term impact of this will not just weaken civilian actors and institutions; this is not one-way traffic.
In a fast-fragmenting state and society where legislation is being used to hollow out institutions such as the judiciary, any new factors that can further add to centralisation of power and increased politicking should worry us all — till some solid answers are provided.
The writer is a journalist.
Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2025 
No comments:
Post a Comment