In a recent interview, Shah Meer Baloch and Hannah Ellis-Petersen reported from Islamabad and Delhi on the contentious developments in Pakistan’s judiciary. The government has passed a controversial constitutional amendment that has raised concerns over the potential erosion of judicial independence and further jeopardized the country’s democratic framework.
The amendment, known as the 26th constitutional amendment, passed through a secretive late-night parliamentary session, which has been mired in allegations of intimidation and even abduction of lawmakers to secure their votes. When asked about the motivations behind this move, critics argue that the ruling coalition, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and consisting of the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party, is eager to control the senior judicial appointments, most notably the power to select the chief justice. This position is pivotal, as the chief justice often serves as the final arbiter in politically charged cases in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has condemned the amendment as a setback for judicial independence, rule of law, and human rights. Opposition parties have leveled serious accusations against the government, claiming they resorted to “arm-twisting” tactics, which allegedly included bribery and coercion, to gather the necessary support for the amendment.
The backdrop of this development includes a politically charged climate following February’s elections, which were marred by accusations of rigging against former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s party. Following the elections, protests led by Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have continued, with calls for investigations into the alleged electoral fraud.
In response to concerns over the new chief justice’s impending investigation into the election’s legitimacy, Salman Akram Raja, the PTI general secretary, expressed apprehension that the amendment is designed to ensure senior judges align with the government’s agenda and prevent any judicial relief for Khan or the PTI. He claimed that the military establishment was behind the amendment, alleging pressure on judges to issue unfavorable rulings in cases involving Khan.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, however, refuted these allegations, asserting that the parliamentary committee responsible for selecting the chief justice will include representatives from all major parties, including the opposition, ensuring that appointments remain free from political manipulation.
Despite the official stance, legal experts and practitioners have voiced deep concerns about the new legislation’s implications for judicial independence, with some stating that it institutionalizes government interference in the judiciary. Salahuddin Ahmed, a senior lawyer, characterized the amendments as a step toward authoritarianism, while former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi remarked that the changes signify a troubling subjugation of the judiciary, effectively threatening the jobs of judges who resist government pressure.
The ongoing situation signals a critical juncture for Pakistan’s judicial system, raising questions about its future and the implications for democracy and human rights in the country.
