In a charged late-night session on Monday, Pakistan’s Senate passed the 27th Constitutional Amendment, a far-reaching proposal that redefines the country’s judicial framework and military command hierarchy. The bill, introduced by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, was approved amid a noisy opposition boycott and now awaits a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly before being sent to President Asif Ali Zardari for final approval.
<a href=”http://republicpolicy.com”>Follow republicpolicy.com</a>
At the heart of the amendment lies a fundamental shift in Article 243 of the Constitution — the creation of a new office, the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), a position to be held by the army chief, effectively consolidating control over all three services. The long-standing post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee would be abolished. The amendment also grants five-star officers lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution, allowing them to retain their rank and privileges indefinitely. Critics argue this unprecedented protection violates the principle of equality before law, placing unelected officials beyond accountability.
<a href=”https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicPolicy”>Follow on YouTube</a>
Equally contentious are the proposed judicial reforms. The amendment establishes a permanent Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which would replace the Supreme Court as the primary constitutional arbiter. The FCC would handle intergovernmental disputes and constitutional interpretations, while the Supreme Court would be reduced to an appellate role. The FCC’s judges would serve until age 68—three years longer than Supreme Court justices—raising further concerns about extended tenure and executive influence.
<a href=”https://x.com/republicpolicy”>Follow on X</a>
Under the new provisions, judges could be transferred between high courts on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan without their consent. If a judge refuses, they risk retirement or accountability proceedings — a move many legal experts see as coercive. Constitutional lawyer Rida Hosain called it a “weaponisation of administrative power to enforce compliance,” warning that it undermines judicial independence.
<a href=”https://facebook.com/republicpolicy”>Follow on Facebook</a>
Reema Omer of the International Commission of Jurists said the amendment dangerously centralises power within the executive branch. “It appears this is being done to shield the existing set-up from judicial scrutiny,” she noted, arguing that the FCC could be used to legitimise controversial executive actions. Senior Supreme Court judge Mansoor Ali Shah echoed this view, calling the amendment “a political device to weaken and control the judiciary.”
<a href=”https://www.tiktok.com/@republic_policy”>Follow on TikTok</a>
Defenders of the amendment, however, claim it introduces necessary reform. Advocate Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar argued that the FCC will bring “focus and speed to constitutional adjudication,” while the new defence structure will “enhance coordination without disturbing service autonomy.” The government maintains that rising constitutional petitions have burdened the Supreme Court and that the amendment seeks administrative clarity rather than control.
<a href=”https://instagram.com/republicpolicy”>Follow on Instagram</a>
Yet civil society remains unconvinced. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan condemned the government’s haste, citing the absence of consultation with the opposition, legal community, or public. Critics argue that the changes institutionalise “the supremacy of the uniform over the ballot,” granting privileges to non-elected officials while keeping the prime minister politically accountable.
<a href=”https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaYMzpX5Ui2WAdHrSg1G”>Follow on WhatsApp Channel</a>
In essence, the 27th Amendment represents more than just procedural reform — it marks a structural reordering of Pakistan’s constitutional balance. By placing military leadership and judiciary under executive control, it threatens to erode democratic accountability and blur the separation of powers. As debate moves to the National Assembly, the question remains: will Parliament act as the guardian of the Constitution — or endorse what many are calling a constitutional surrender?
