Pakistan Constitutional Amendments:

[ghazi52]

Calls had subsequently emerged from various quarters for a probe into the investigation, amid which former chief justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa summoned a full court meeting of the apex court’s judges.

However, any action on the letter remains pending till now. The SJC in November considered different options concerning the letter and agreed to expand consultations, noting that the code of conduct of judges applied to heads of different institutions as well as judges.

Meanwhile, the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024 that became law in October last year is legislation that took away the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers, set the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term at three years and empowered the prime minister to appoint the next CJP from among the three most senior SC judges.

The amendment was criticised for the haste with which it was passed. The International Court of Jurists derided the “blow to judicial independence” when the 26th Amendment was signed into law.

Questions have arisen since then on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court’s judge with calls for a full court bench to take up the appeals against the constitutional amendment and decide the matter.

 

[ghazi52]

Appeals against 26th Amendment must be heard by full court to settle all concerns​

There is increasing frustration over complications created by the law, especially as it has begun interfering with independent functioning of judiciary.

Court in crisis​

Editorial
January 30, 2025

THE Supreme Court faces a crisis of legitimacy. A growing chorus within the legal community has been calling for challenges to the 26th Amendment to be heard by a full court, but the appeal has fallen on deaf ears.

There is increasing frustration over the complications created by the law, especially as it has begun interfering with the independent functioning of the judiciary. The growing public perception is that the judiciary has been hijacked by other branches of the state, with judges being appointed to senior positions not on the basis of individual merit but on what ‘services’ they may be able to offer in return for their appointments.

While it would be unfair to believe such criticisms without supporting evidence, the fact remains that there has been very little effort on the part of the institution and its leadership to address such concerns in good faith.

Recent remarks by one of the senior-most judges of the Islamabad High Court have underlined the fact that criticism of the 26th Amendment is not simply political in nature.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, senior puisne judge of the Islamabad High Court, on Tuesday lent his support to the caucus calling for a full court to hear the 26th Amendment challenges. He seemed convinced the amendment was moved in response to a “letter”, ostensibly the one written by six justices of the IHC detailing brazen meddling in court affairs. Many others seem to share very similar views.

 

[ghazi52]

Meanwhile, that same day, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court set aside a ruling issued by a regular bench regarding the administrative jurisdiction of the committees that oversee case assignments.

The decision prompted a recusal from one of the judges of the constitutional bench, who left with a note that the court should “preserve and safeguard the sanctity of judicial orders”.

Clearly, there is much unrest within the superior judiciary over the 26th Amendment and its resultant complications and controversies. There is force in the position taken by many fair-minded individuals within the legal community that the challenges against the amendment must be heard by all justices of the Supreme Court so that they are conclusively decided.

The judges assigned to one bench do not become superior in their legal acumen compared to those assigned to other benches merely by virtue of their appointment. Therefore, there is no reason why only some should decide the challenges and others should not.

There are also several past precedents of a full court hearing challenges to constitutional amendments to support this demand. There is no denying that the integrity and independence of the present Supreme Court seem to be in doubt, even among those within the judiciary. It seems prudent to settle all concerns fairly instead of allowing them to fester.

Published in Dawn, January 30th, 2025

 

[Fatman17]

EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court faces a crisis of legitimacy. A growing chorus within the legal community has been calling for challenges to the 26th Amendment to be heard by a full court, but the appeal has fallen on deaf ears.

There is increasing frustration over the complications created by the law, especially as it has begun interfering with the independent functioning of the judiciary. The growing public perception is that the judiciary has been hijacked by other branches of the state, with judges being appointed to senior positions not on the basis of individual merit but on what ‘services’ they may be able to offer in return for their appointments.

While it would be unfair to believe such criticisms without supporting evidence, the fact remains that there has been very little effort on the part of the institution and its leadership to address such concerns in good faith.

Read more: https://www.dawn.com/news/1888595/

 

[Fatman17]

Iron Fist in Silk Gloves

 

[Fatman17]

EDITORIAL: It sometimes appears as if those struggling for an independent judiciary have needlessly burdened themselves with preserving the institution’s prestige. When the top judges of the country have few concerns about public perceptions, it seems futile to worry endlessly about institutional integrity. ‘Que sera, sera’, as they say.

Ever since the 26th Amendment, matters seem to have gone according to script without a hitch. Judges perceived as being ‘too independent’ or holding views opposed to the ruling regime’s policies appear to have been systematically sidelined and substituted by individuals seemingly more acceptable to the regime. There has been little transparency about why certain judges have been transferred from one high court to another or why certain judges have been elevated while others have not.

Read more: https://www.dawn.com/news/1891414/

 

[Fatman17]

 

[Fatman17]

EDITORIAL: The Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights, Azam Nazeer Tarar, sang a strange tune at the UN.

As the country continues sliding in corruption perceptions, democratic standards, and political and civil liberties, as evidenced by the recent deterioration in its ranking in various global indices that track these social indicators, Mr Tarar on Wednesday told attendees at a high-level segment of the 58th Session of the UN Human Rights Council that Pakistan remains “strongly committed” to upholding “all human rights”.

Surprisingly, he held up the 26th Amendment as an example of the “robust legislative and policy measures” taken towards protecting human rights in the country. Ever since it was enacted, the 26th Amendment has come to be known for many things. Upholding the Pakistani people’s rights is not one of them. Indeed, the consensus among most fair-minded folk seems to be that it has done quite the opposite.

Read full editorial: https://www.dawn.com/news/1894784

 

[gamaji]

It is amazing how some people are at pains for this constitutional amendment. It’s a shame that our judiciary is reportedly at 138th position (very close to the bottom) in the global ranking. I am sure African countries have better judges than our disgracefully truck-famed (a term that symbolizes a billion rupees bribe) judges. An elected government cannot leave these dishonest and disgraceful judges to keep rotting the whole system by pursuing their vested interests. The legislature had to break this nexus between these disgraceful judges and criminals. Some of these judges have allegedly fake degrees, others have permanent residency of other countries, some are running housing societies, and yet some others have allegedly blackmailed civil servants to get/grab monitory/material benefits. Every move or request put forward before this judiciary for an action or even investigation against these serious allegations has effective been blocked by it. All this isn't really surprising given the fact that most of these judges were handpicked based on their relation with particular law chambers (i.e. legal mafia) or a relative who was a judge. All that shit needs to be cleaned. The 26th amendment brings a institutional approach to the judges' selection and appointment. Why would a common person object to that? It’s only the touts of judicial mafia who are making hue and cry against this constitutional amendment.

 

[M. Sarmad]

.... An elected government cannot leave these dishonest and disgraceful judges to keep rotting the whole system by pursuing their vested interests. ..

It is not a democratically elected government, but a sham Form 47 regime forcibly installed by the Army. Even then the 26th constitutional amendment could only be passed through blatant coercion, following the abduction of lawmakers and their forced compliance to vote in its favour. This amendment fundamentally alters and damages the very essence of the constitution. To defend such a travesty requires either profound naivety or deliberate intellectual dishonesty...


And agreed, our corrupt and inefficient judiciary was riddled with flaws and in urgent need of reform. But the 26th Amendment has not reformed the judiciary, it has rendered it toothless, subservient to politicians who are equally, if not more, corrupt and incompetent. This amendment has brutally dismantled the principle of separation of powers, placing unchecked authority in the hands of the executive — a class of politicians who themselves serve as mere puppets of the establishment. Stripping the judiciary of its independence to empower an unaccountable executive is not reform, it is the destruction of whatever fragile semblance of rule of law remained. This was never a solution — it is the classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ( That is, of course, assuming that reforming the judiciary was ever the real agenda to begin with...)

 

[gamaji]

It is not a democratically elected government, but a sham Form 47 regime forcibly installed by the Army. Even then the 26th constitutional amendment could only be passed through blatant coercion, following the abduction of lawmakers and their forced compliance to vote in its favour. This amendment fundamentally alters and damages the very essence of the constitution. To defend such a travesty requires either profound naivety or deliberate intellectual dishonesty...


And agreed, our corrupt and inefficient judiciary was riddled with flaws and in urgent need of reform. But the 26th Amendment has not reformed the judiciary, it has rendered it toothless, subservient to politicians who are equally, if not more, corrupt and incompetent. This amendment has brutally dismantled the principle of separation of powers, placing unchecked authority in the hands of the executive — a class of politicians who themselves serve as mere puppets of the establishment. Stripping the judiciary of its independence to empower an unaccountable executive is not reform, it is the destruction of whatever fragile semblance of rule of law remained. This was never a solution — it is the classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ( That is, of course, assuming that reforming the judiciary was ever the real agenda to begin with...)

“And agreed, our corrupt and inefficient judiciary was riddled with flaws and in urgent need of reform. “

Thanks for recognizing that our judiciary is rotten. How that rot has affected the system? You can ask someone (who is a commoner) who went through this rotten judicial grinder.



“But the 26th Amendment has not reformed the judiciary, it has rendered it toothless, subservient to politicians who are equally, if not more, corrupt and incompetent. This amendment has brutally dismantled the principle of separation of powers, placing unchecked authority in the hands of the executive”

Please note that parliament is not executive. I see even some lawyers saying that the executive now has control over the judiciary. It’s totally wrong. It’s the legislature that got its long over due role in judges’ appointments.



“— a class of politicians who themselves serve as mere puppets of the establishment. “

Our politicians too are utterly corrupt. But why judiciary has failed to catch and punish those corrupt politicians? It is a nexus between the black sheep in judiciary and politicians. The process of check and balance has to start from somewhere and I believe 26th amendment is a step in right direction.

“Stripping the judiciary of its independence to empower an unaccountable executive is not reform, it is the destruction of whatever fragile semblance of rule of law remained. “

Stripping judiciary of its independence is a totally wrong and misleading claim. Judges are supposed to give their judgments according to the law and constitution. Our judges were trying to strangulate the constitution itself and giving contradictory judgments on the same issues. So much so, some judges from the same judiciary raised their voice against the overstepping of the constitution. The 26th amendment is aimed to bring better judges rather than the ones with vested interests.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Please note that parliament is not executive. I see even some lawyers saying that the executive now has control over the judiciary. It’s totally wrong. It’s the legislature that got its long over due role in judges’ appointments.

You seem to be conflating a few points and failing to grasp the essence of what those lawyers are highlighting. In Pakistan, as in other systems inspired by the UK's parliamentary model, the executive and legislative branches aren't clearly separated as they are in the US presidential system. The Prime Minister and Federal Cabinet, who head the executive branch, are directly drawn from the National Assembly, which forms the legislative branch.

Prior to the amendment, the judiciary was the only branch that could — at least in theory — act as a check on the executive's abuse of power. That is no longer the case, as the judiciary has been effectively reduced to a subordinate arm of the executive. The government now holds the authority to appoint judges of its own choosing — without any transparent or merit-based criteria — to preside over cases involving the state/executive, compromising both judicial independence and the principle of impartial justice.


The whole narrative of judicial reform was merely a smokescreen. The actual objective behind the 26th Amendment was to neuter the judiciary's ability to challenge 8th Feb 2024 rigged elections, grant the military-backed executive regime complete impunity and eliminate any legal avenues for political opposition to seek justice.

Pakistan is no longer a republic, it's a military-controlled oligarchy where laws are mere tools to protect the regime and punish dissent.

 

[gamaji]

You seem to be conflating a few points and failing to grasp the essence of what those lawyers are highlighting. In Pakistan, as in other systems inspired by the UK's parliamentary model, the executive and legislative branches aren't clearly separated as they are in the US presidential system. The Prime Minister and Federal Cabinet, who head the executive branch, are directly drawn from the National Assembly, which forms the legislative branch.

Prior to the amendment, the judiciary was the only branch that could — at least in theory — act as a check on the executive's abuse of power. That is no longer the case, as the judiciary has been effectively reduced to a subordinate arm of the executive. The government now holds the authority to appoint judges of its own choosing — without any transparent or merit-based criteria — to preside over cases involving the state/executive, compromising both judicial independence and the principle of impartial justice.


The whole narrative of judicial reform was merely a smokescreen. The actual objective behind the 26th Amendment was to neuter the judiciary's ability to challenge 8th Feb 2024 rigged elections, grant the military-backed executive regime complete impunity and eliminate any legal avenues for political opposition to seek justice.

Pakistan is no longer a republic, it's a military-controlled oligarchy where laws are mere tools to protect the regime and punish dissent.

I think you are either unable or unwilling to understand the role of Pakistani judiciary that has merely acted as a mistress of our corrupt Pakistani elite class while itself taking a deeper dip in the dirty pool of corruption. This judiciary has ruined the lives of countless ordinary Pakistani families. We cannot keep crying for the ‘independence’ of that gang of crooks – the dirty stains on the sacred sheet called justice. Their disgraceful bottom global ranking is not without reasons. We need a judiciary that serves justice to all and sundry just following the law and constitution. We cannot support ‘judges’ who sell the justice while miserably fail in delivering justice to the weak who keep waiting for it for generation and, in the due course, get ruined. We don’t want the judges who overstep or even re-write constitutional clauses while pursuing their political agenda. I am sorry but it’s shameful to even call them judges.

Your reference to the US system is also misplaced. Which separation of executive and judiciary in the US are you talking about? As opposed to Pakistani mechanism, there is no role of judges or judiciary in the selection and appointment of judges there. In the US, federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are selected/nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and voting on the nominee before the full Senate votes for final confirmation. The national assembly or senate in Pakistan do not directly interview the candidates. Rather a separate body comprising of serving judges, reps from bars, reps from the executive, and members of legislative bodies (i.e. NA and Senate) consider and approve the judges appointments. Please present a better mechanism if you have one.

Your claim regarding the Form 47 government holds no ground either. PTI’s supported candidates submitted merely 20 or so election complaints and all recounting done so far has resulted in PTI losing those seats. For the sake of argument, even if all 20 or so seats are given to PTI, still the current democratically elected government stays in power. Why you are trying to insult people’s choice for those who they sent to NA as their representative. Is the nation required to get an approval from some skew-minded thinker fools sitting in their drawing rooms for the validity of elected representatives of people of Pakistan?

PTI claims are standing on lies, deception, and propaganda. Agreed, these elections were not held in an ideal manner but, as opposed to 2018 elections, we did not have the RTS system blatantly failing, election results openly manipulated, and a disgustingly rotten person installed in Pakistan. We don’t have a col. Liaqat who runs the parliament while keeping MNAs and senators imprisoned in containers before every crucial voting event in NA or senate.

I would urge you stop paddling lies, accept the reality, and support the national interests.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I think you are either unable or unwilling to understand the role of Pakistani judiciary that has merely acted as a mistress of our corrupt Pakistani elite class while itself taking a deeper dip in the dirty pool of corruption. This judiciary has ruined the lives of countless ordinary Pakistani families. We cannot keep crying for the ‘independence’ of that gang of crooks – the dirty stains on the sacred sheet called justice. Their disgraceful bottom global ranking is not without reasons. We need a judiciary that serves justice to all and sundry just following the law and constitution. We cannot support ‘judges’ who sell the justice while miserably fail in delivering justice to the weak who keep waiting for it for generation and, in the due course, get ruined. We don’t want the judges who overstep or even re-write constitutional clauses while pursuing their political agenda. I am sorry but it’s shameful to even call them judges.

Your reference to the US system is also misplaced. Which separation of executive and judiciary in the US are you talking about? As opposed to Pakistani mechanism, there is no role of judges or judiciary in the selection and appointment of judges there. In the US, federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are selected/nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and voting on the nominee before the full Senate votes for final confirmation. The national assembly or senate in Pakistan do not directly interview the candidates. Rather a separate body comprising of serving judges, reps from bars, reps from the executive, and members of legislative bodies (i.e. NA and Senate) consider and approve the judges appointments. Please present a better mechanism if you have one.

Your claim regarding the Form 47 government holds no ground either. PTI’s supported candidates submitted merely 20 or so election complaints and all recounting done so far has resulted in PTI losing those seats. For the sake of argument, even if all 20 or so seats are given to PTI, still the current democratically elected government stays in power. Why you are trying to insult people’s choice for those who they sent to NA as their representative. Is the nation required to get an approval from some skew-minded thinker fools sitting in their drawing rooms for the validity of elected representatives of people of Pakistan?

PTI claims are standing on lies, deception, and propaganda. Agreed, these elections were not held in an ideal manner but, as opposed to 2018 elections, we did not have the RTS system blatantly failing, election results openly manipulated, and a disgustingly rotten person installed in Pakistan. We don’t have a col. Liaqat who runs the parliament while keeping MNAs and senators imprisoned in containers before every crucial voting event in NA or senate.

I would urge you stop paddling lies, accept the reality, and support the national interests.

That's an excess of words with little substance. Your emotionally charged, partisan outbursts do not amount to a compelling argument. Try again ...

And as for your reference to the US judicial system and its comparison (or lack thereof) with Pakistan's, that's been already addressed in post# 210.

But if you remain inclined to delve into the workings of the US judicial system and how it upholds the separation of powers, we can discuss that ...

 

[M. Sarmad]

I would urge you stop paddling lies, accept the reality, and support the national interests.

Ah, the tired old "national interest" rhetoric?...as if patriotism weren't already the last refuge of scoundrels?...

.. Yet where is the national interest in an army relentlessly sabotaging every institution in its path, clinging to power through extra-constitutional and illegal means??

And no, I'm not the one peddling lies here — it's painfully obvious who is...