Pakistan Constitutional Amendments:

Ultimately, the question is not whether Pakistan needs a modernised defence structure. However, it definitely needs to be updated.

The question is whether modernisation must come at the cost of institutional equilibrium. History offers a cautionary note that once military power is constitutionalised, it rarely yields ground voluntarily.

Article 243 was meant to preserve civilian command over the armed forces. The 27th Amendment risks rewriting it into a charter of military supremacy.

Published in Dawn, November 9th, 2025
 

Supreme no more

What General Ziaul Haq may have dreamt of, and what General Pervez Musharraf could not achieve, will soon be an accomplished fact.

Makhdoom Ali Khan
November 9, 2025

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but with a whimper — (The Hollow Men) T.S. Eliot


Newspaper editors, at times, require writers to cobble up a short article on famous persons, in the throes of death, that can be used as an obituary when they cease to be. Institutions on the brink of extinction merit similar consideration.

This is not an essay on the impact of the 27th constitutional amendment bill on the judiciary. It is not even a comment. It is an obituary of the Supreme Court (SC) and the high courts that we once knew. If you have known a person or institution well and for long, such a piece is also not easy to write. Expression requires words. The bill has left us at a loss for words. Trying as it is, one must nevertheless soldier on.

One must begin with the high courts. Central to the authority of these highest provincial courts is their jurisdiction to check executive and legislative overreach.

Any aggrieved citizen can call an action of state in question by invoking Article 199 of the Constitution. That jurisdiction will survive. Such cases will, however, be heard now by the constitutional benches of the high courts.
 
In the past, the chief justice of the respective high court assigned these cases.

With the 26th Amendment, this authority has been transferred to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), where the chief justice of Pakistan and other judges are in a minority.

The state whose actions are under scrutiny in such matters is ascendant.

Every experienced lawyer knows that a party with the authority to control the assignment of cases can also control outcomes.

Judges, like the rest of us, have their preferences and prejudices. Baser motives are not needed. When the desired outcome of a case is matched with the inclinations of a judge, success is almost assured.

Any miscalculation in assessing human predilections is ringfenced by keeping the sword of transfer in full view of any judge, who may entertain adventurous ideas.

The president of the country will have the authority to transfer a judge of one high court to another. They can be exiled from a city or an area, where they have spent a lifetime, to another high court in another province.

They will have no say in the matter. To the contrary, a judge, who does not accept such a transfer will be deemed retired.
 
The powerful dissent of SC’s Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan in the Islamabad High Court judges’ case ought to have made us pause and reflect on the deleterious consequences of such transfers for judicial independence.

Instead, we have swung full throttled in the opposite direction. Even the judges of the SC will no longer be immune from such actions.

The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) will be appointed from lawyers or from judges of the SC.

Any SC judge, who refuses to accept this appointment, will be deemed retired.

Do not be surprised if you soon witness a purge of “undesirable” SC judges.
 
In matters of transfer, the SC will at least be at par with the high courts. In other respects, it will fare worse.

It will not be left with any authority to hear any appeals in constitutional cases from the high courts.

That authority will belong to the FCC. So will the jurisdiction to decide disputes between provinces, or between one or more provinces and the Federation, to adjudicate petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and to advise the president on questions of constitutional law. All such matters presently pending in the SC will stand transferred to the FCC.

Appeals, under various statutes, will be diverted to the FCC by making an amendment to them.

It is apparent that the Elections Act, 2017 and other such statutes will soon be modified to effect this change.

All election disputes will soon fall into the FCC’s lap. If a substantial question of constitutional law, by some quirk of fate or lawyer’s ingenuity gets raised in any case before any court, the FCC will have the authority to sweep all such matters into its domain.

With one stroke of pen, the almost century old law of precedent will be erased. The FCC will not be bound by a judgment of the SC. All courts, including the SC, will be bound by the judgement of the FCC. That settles any lingering doubt about which of the two courts is higher.
 
Where does this leave the SC? It will not be the highest court in the land anymore. It will be restricted to hearing appeals in civil and criminal matters just like the district and sessions courts.

Nothing of any consequence on the national and constitutional plane will remain in its domain.

For all effects and purposes, it will be reduced to the ‘Supreme District and Sessions Court’.

What General Ziaul Haq may have dreamt of, and what General Pervez Musharraf could not achieve, will soon be an accomplished fact.

This amendment, when carried, will give a lie to all those who have protested the ineffectiveness of our “elected” representatives and the inability of our parliament to change things. As demolition jobs go, this one is inimitable.

For nothing now can ever come to any good — (Funeral Blues) W.H. Auden
 
This amendment, when carried, will give a lie to all those who have protested the ineffectiveness of our “elected” representatives and the inability of our parliament to change things. As demolition jobs go, this one is inimitable.
That’s only because those sitting in parliament aren’t elected by the people but selected by the military establishment. Same goes for judges in judiciary and bureaucrats in civil service. 🙄
 
Five-star officers of the Pakistan Armed Forces, as proposed in the 27th Amendment, will retain rank, privileges and remain in uniform for life, and shall not be removed from office except via full parliamentary impeachment procedure (via 2/3rds majority of the Joint Parliament).
 
So, lifting army’s balls will get you somewhere? 🙄

Yes it does actually - like winning wars.
Since you have just waken up from your hiberation, there some news for you -- the whole damn country has been under the weight of Army's balls since 1947. But the only difference is that at least they WIN a War. And winning a war is the REAL DEAL unlike winning a cricket match and banging western chics, and then all of sudden discover "pain for Pakistan people" while married to a JEW.
Be realistic - we were and are under the Rule of the Military and it will NOT change. Imran is not getting out nor he is becoming a PM ever again.

We need to work with what we have and remain united. We cannot destroy our country for just one fuking man.
 
The proposed Chief of Defense Forces (CDF), also concurrently the COAS, will become the tri-services head and senior-most uniformed military officer in the country.

The CDF will exercise administrative over all forces and integrated/joint military operations and initiatives.
 
The new National Strategic Command, as proposed in the 27th Amendment, will be the encompassing tri-services nuclear command and control body including as subordinate divisions, the Army, Navy's and Air Force's strategic commands, and will operate Pakistan's nuclear triad.
 
Your and our society is different. I'm not saying that we cannot learn from your political model, but we have our own challenges that we need to overcome.
Yes. My view is that Pakistan cannot replicate China's political model, but it can refer to or learn from it in some aspects.
1. You are overwhelmingly ethnically similar. 91% Han. We are multi-ethnic and in large parts a society influenced by tribal culture. Even in our modern cities we have people who won't marry other people based on differences in identity such as clan/caste/inter-religious denomination. Those differences are exploited in an environment where resources are limited to create a "us and them" mentality - whereas in reality the only us and them, is the established elite Vs the rest of us.
From a Chinese perspective, while race is related to this issue, it's not the core problem.

The Han Chinese are fundamentally different from other ethnic groups. Their issues cannot be simply viewed as racial problems. The Han Chinese are actually a collective term for the majority of Chinese people who share common values. From the perspective of human ancestry research, they are a product of the complete integration of multiple races. This is related to the historical development of China.

For example: During the Qing Dynasty, the rulers of China were Manchus. Through the efforts of several emperors, the Manchus began to highly integrate with the Han Chinese. They respected Han culture and learned and used it. The official language was a mixture of Manchu and Chinese, with Chinese as the primary language.

After the fall of the Qing Dynasty, many Manchus changed their names and adopted Han names to conceal their Manchu identity in order to survive.

In modern China, we respect all ethnic groups. When people of different ethnicities intermarry, their children can choose their own ethnicity (most choose non-Han). According to Chinese law, non-Han Chinese people enjoy many special welfare benefits in China. The unique cultures of each ethnic group develop naturally according to the objective laws inherent in their cultural attributes. The cheongsam, a unique garment of the Manchu people, is very popular in China.

It should be noted that China has very strict control over religious culture, but not over ethnic minority cultures. This distinction needs to be made.
2. Around 40% of our population cannot read and write, not even the bare basics. Of the other 60% you have seen the lack of quality of education on this very forum. Look how absent critical thinking is, look how prevalent rumours are, how undisciplined the discourse between us is. This is exploited by the people in power and great effort taken to keep it that way. They need it to remain in power.
In 1949, shortly after the PRC was established, the CCP began implementing basic education throughout China. Later, the Chinese government legislated for nine years of compulsory education.

The Pakistani government should indeed strengthen its citizens' basic education.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Back
Top