Pakistan Constitutional Amendments:

[Fatman17]

On the heels of the 26th Amendment’s passage, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on Monday remarked that the question of jurisdiction would “arise every day” in the Supreme Court (SC) following legislation on constitutional benches.

Read more: https://www.dawn.com/news/1866666/q...lation-on-constitutional-benches-justice-shah

 

[Fatman17]

Right to clean, healthy environment​

The bill proposes the insertion of a “new Article 9A” into the Constitution. The insertion is as follows:

“9A. Clean and healthy environment — Every person shall be entitled to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”

Point 2 of Part 1 in the Fourth Schedule will now read: “Military, naval and air force works; local self-government in cantonment areas; local taxes, fees, cess, charges, tolls in such areas; the constitution and powers within such areas of cantonment authorities, the regulation of house accommodation in such areas, and the delimitation of such areas.”

The addition made is: “local taxes, fees, cess, charges, tolls in such areas”.

 

[ghazi52]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ghazi52]

President Zardari gives assent to 26th Constitutional Amendment​

PM Shehbaz sent his advice to the president following Act's approval from NA earlier today; PTI assails "conscience of turncoats".

 

[ghazi52]

The undeclared aim of some of the new amendments is to control judges​

It contains 3 provisions which undermine judicial independence.

CONSTITUTIONAL office holders, including superior court judges and legislators, swear an oath when assuming office. The oath requires them to act in accordance with the Constitution.

Does this mean they are bound to act in accordance with, and uphold, any amendments made to the Constitution?

The 1973 Constitution provides by its express terms that it can be amended. For a constitutional amendment, the relevant bill must be passed by two-thirds of the total membership of each House. Thereafter, the relevant bill is presented to the president for assent. Following presidential assent, the bill becomes law and the Constitution stands amended. If this process is not followed, the amendment is procedurally invalid.

For procedural validity, there are three requirements. First, there is the numerical threshold required in each House. Second, the vote must be of individuals who qualify as ‘members’ of the relevant House. If the required two-thirds majority is contingent on votes of members whose election is subject to dispute, then the amendment is subject to the outcome of the dispute.

If, ultimately, it is determined that the relevant individual was not lawfully elected, then the amendment is invalid as it would not have been passed by the requisite majority of members. Third, if the vote has been procured by duress or corruption, the vote is invalid. If established that the required majority was achieved through such unlawful means, the amendment would not have received the requisite support.

Such formulations should be uncontroversial. Constitutional amendments cannot be based on votes of individuals who have not won the election and therefore are not lawful members. Nor can they be based on votes that have been unlawfully procured.

Apart from procedural impropriety, a constitutional amendment can also be challenged on substantive grounds. This principle is set out in the case where the 21st Amendment was considered by the full court of the Supreme Court (SC). The plurality of judges held that there is an implied limitation on the powers of parliament to amend the Constitution.

Although parliament can amend, it cannot abrogate or substantively alter the salient features of the Constitution. These so-called salient features have been identified as including democracy, parliamentary form of government, and independence of the judiciary.

The latest draft of the bill providing for the 26th Amendment contains three provisions which undermine judicial independence.

The minority judgments in this case were troubled with the SC assuming such power. Justice Saqib Nisar, as he then was, stated that allowing the courts to interfere with constitutional amendments would be tantamount to, “judicial aggrandisement of power at the expense of the elected representatives of the people”.

 

[ghazi52]

Editorial: ​

26th Amendment could trigger a new stand-off between legal fraternity and govt​

Fear remains that the ruling coalition may misuse the tweaks to appoint judges of their choice to the new ‘constitutional bench', or elevate a ‘like-minded’ judge to CJP's role.

HAS the storm passed? The coming days will tell. The ruling coalition’s much-debated ‘constitutional package’ was finally endorsed by the Senate late Sunday evening, capping off weeks of fervent politicking and negotiation over its different provisions.

It was headed to the National Assembly at the time these lines were being written. Compared to the draft that had emerged after the abortive first attempt to bulldoze the amendments, the bill approved yesterday appeared to be a more watered-down version.

Even the PTI, which lost an important opportunity to suggest improvements in the bill by boycotting the voting process, acknowledged that it was ‘much better’ than the initial proposals. The party’s leader in the Senate, Barrister Ali Zaffar, was profuse in his praise for JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman for this ‘achievement’, even though he maintained his party’s reservations on the new process for judges’ selection and key appointments in the superior judiciary.

The bill endorsed by parliament included 22 amendments in all, less than half of the over 50 provisions that were part of earlier drafts. This depleted version was also almost universally acceptable, with PTI leaders saying they would have participated in the voting process if it was held at a later date, mainly because they still needed to consult their jailed party chief on some remaining items.

From first impressions, it appeared that the new appointment process for the Supreme Court chief justice remained the most contentious of the proposed amendments, with the government getting an unprecedented say in who makes the cut.

Given the long-running feuds and divisions, both within the apex court and between the branches of the state, and their impact on major political developments in the country, the changes being made could trigger a new stand-off between the legal fraternity and the government. How the lawyers’ community reacts remains to be seen.

A fear remains that the ruling coalition may try to misuse the amendments to appoint judges of their choice to the new ‘constitutional bench’, or elevate a ‘like-minded’ judge to the chief justice’s position.

Perhaps the PTI’s should have taken its responsibility, as the primary opponent of these amendments, more seriously. It should have presented alternative ideas or proposed changes to make the process ‘fairer’. Even if these proposals were rejected during the process, it could have at least claimed to have offered other options.

That said, the responsibility of building a consensus remained with the government, and if achieving buy-in from all parties meant taking a few more days or even weeks, the option should have been exhausted. Instead, the government bound itself to an arbitrary deadline, seemingly to pre-empt the upcoming change of guard at the apex court. It remains to be seen how matters will proceed from here.

Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2024

 

[ghazi52]

Senators berate PTI for opposing amendment​

Iftikhar A. Khan
October 21, 2024

• Ali Zafar says current draft allows govt to install judges of its choosing
• Dar claims follow-up amendments to CrPC in the pipeline
• ANP’s Aimal Wali says Pakistan needs judges like Qazi Faez Isa
• MWM senator says legislation becomes questionable when people are abducted, harassed for its sake

Aimal Wali Khan

ISLAMABAD: Taking part in the debate in the Senate on the 26th Constitution Amendment Bill 2024, senators from the ruling coalition criticised the PTI for not becoming a part of the exercise to introduce essential amendments to the Constitution.

However, the party’s leader in the upper house, Barrister Ali Zafar, said there were several reasons why they had chosen not to become a part of this legislation.

“We were not given the opportunity to consult the founder PTI. There are some clauses in the current draft which are a big stain on democracy and a very serious flaw in it. There are those that will cause us irreparable harm in the future, which will be impossible to change,” he said, adding that most of the points in the current draft would allow the government to appoint judges of its own choice.

He expressed the fear that their “abducted comrades will be presented in the House for the constitutional amendment, who will vote by force or for any other reason.”

“Voting after forcing, beating and abducting people is not consensual, the manner in which the constitutional amendment is being done is not only a crime but also against religious values,” he argued.

 

[ghazi52]

PM Shehbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Congratulated Nation on 26th Constitutional Amendment..

 

[ghazi52]

President Asif Ali Zardari officially approved the 26th constitutional amendment, which has now become law following its publication in the official gazette.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif lauded the unanimous passage of the amendment, calling it a "shining example of national consensus" and a fulfilment of the unfinished vision of the Charter of Democracy, initiated by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

He declared that the era of dismissing elected prime ministers is over and expressed gratitude to Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari and Maulana Fazlur Rehman for their efforts in advancing the country's best interests.

 

[ghazi52]

Gandapur vows action against those who stood with govt on constitutional amendment​

If senior-most judge is not appointed CJP, we will once again take to streets in protest, warns K-P CM

Correspondent
October 21, 2024

K-P Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur addressing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly on Monday. SCREENGRAB

PESHAWAR: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur has issued a stern warning to those who, whether they voted for the 26th constitutional amendment or simply stood by the government, will face consequences.

"We won’t spare anyone aligned with the government, regardless of whether they cast a vote," he stated during his address to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly on Monday.

 

[ghazi52]

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has sent an advice to President Asif Ali Zardari for assent of the 26th constitutional amendment after its passage by both houses of the parliament with a two third majority.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

1 - Rigged Election , 12 seat winner, pretending as winner <illegal>
2- Rigged Supreme court judge <illegal>
3- Delay in allocation of Reserved seat for PTI <illegal>
4- Un Supported , man , pretending to be Prime Minister <illegal>
5- Voting done using , violence and kidnapping <illegal>
6- Amendment to constitution, attack on judiciary<illegal>
7- Photoshot session , not illegal but should not sit on Prime Minister Chair <illegal>


Kidnapping / Abduction / Harassment of Senators (and/or their family) to force few to vote for a constitutional change
this is not democracy, in a functional democracy such actions are not done

Kidnapping is done by Mafia and gangsters

That is what I see, for us Pakistani, if we started to accept , the government is elected , then they are successful in their illusion

When Pakistanis don't accept the Rigged election , what is this talk about constitutional amendment ?

When election result is never accepted how can any amendment be accepted?


A Mafia normally claims to be Godfather of neighborhood
proceeds to kidnap or torture families of Citizen, this does not happen in a normal functional democracy

A politician , a real politicians is more focused on people

And this is why Pakistanis are on one side , and other side is Mafia

 

[ghazi52]

Madrassas to offer thanksgiving prayers on 26th Amendment approval​

A ceremony was held in honour of Senator Kamran Murtaza, organised by JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman

News Desk
October 22, 2024

PHOTO: EXPRESS

The Secretary-General of Wifaq ul Madaris, Maulana Hanif Jalandhari, has urged religious seminaries across Pakistan to offer thanksgiving prayers following the approval of Islamic clauses in the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

A ceremony was held in honour of Senator Kamran Murtaza, organised by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, on Monday. Notable figures such as Mufti Taqi Usmani, Maulana Hanif Jalandhari, and Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri attended the event.

Addressing the gathering, Maulana Fazlur Rehman highlighted Senator Kamran Murtaza’s key role in the passage of the amendment. "Today’s ceremony is dedicated to Kamran Murtaza for his significant contribution," he said, adding that the presence of Mufti Taqi Usmani was a special honour.

Mufti Taqi Usmani, in his speech, praised the efforts behind the amendment. "When the amendments were approved and signed by the president, I saw Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s tireless work," he said. "This is a great service to the country and the nation."

 

[ghazi52]

26th Constitutional Amendment a 'blow to judicial independence': ICJ​

International Commission of Jurists decries ‘secretive manner’ adopted to pass the amendments

News Desk
October 21, 2024

Parliament building in Islamabad. PHOTO: FILE

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has strongly criticised the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament, labelling it a “blow to judicial independence.”

Expressing deep concern, it stated that the amendment represented “a blow to judicial independence, the rule of law, and human rights protection”.

In a statement, Santiago Canton, the ICJ secretary general, warned that the reforms bring an “extraordinary level of political influence over the process of judicial appointments and the judiciary’s own administration".

Canton added that the changes “erode the judiciary’s capacity to independently and effectively function as a check against excesses by other branches of the State and protect human rights”.

The ICJ further criticised the rapidity with which the amendment became law, pointing out that the draft changes were kept secret, with no public consultations held before they were introduced and passed by parliament.

“It is alarming that a Constitutional Amendment of such significance and public interest was passed in such a secretive manner and in less than 24 hours,” Canton said.

He added, “The core principle of the rule of law and the separation of powers, according to which citizens and their freely chosen representatives have the right to participate in the legislative process culminating in the adoption and enactment of laws, was flagrantly violated in this case”.

The ICJ also noted that the amendment “seriously undermines the independence of the judiciary by unduly subjecting it to executive and parliamentary control”.

In particular, the ICJ took issue with changes to the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), arguing that the reforms would “allow for direct political influence over it and reduce the JCP’s judicial members to a minority”.

The ICJ warned that giving the JCP the power to form constitutional benches could lead to the creation of “tailor-made judicial benches to hear specific cases,” including politically significant cases, raising concerns that such benches would not be independent or impartial.

The ICJ also voiced concerns over the process for appointing the chief justice of Pakistan, noting that the amendment provides no clear grounds or criteria for the parliamentary committee that will nominate the CJP.

The changes related to the removal of inefficient judges also drew criticism, as the amendment does not define inefficiency or establish any clear criteria for it.

While acknowledging that some reforms may have been necessary to improve the efficiency, accountability, and transparency of the judicial system, the ICJ firmly opposed the new amendments.

Canton emphasised, “These amendments are an attempt to subjugate the judiciary and bring it under the control of the executive, betraying fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary".

It is pertinent to note that the amendments have also sparked concerns among legal experts and human rights defenders in Pakistan, who fear that they will compromise the judiciary’s ability to function as an impartial and independent institution.

 

[Analyst]

The state has been brutally crushing Baloch dissidents for decades, and the use of brute force against Pashtuns, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is undeniable. And let’s not forget the Bengalis... The system has always operated this way, some people simply felt its impact sooner, which is why they reacted before others did.

And humanity transcends all nations and religions. A military-ruled state that denies its own citizens basic human rights and freedoms granted in the constitution, and ruthlessly silences dissidents by abducting/ extra-judicially killing them cannot be justified, and no amount of patriotic rhetoric can obscure that reality.

And no, this isn’t about PTI. They are just another useless political party and don’t offer any real solutions to Pakistan's problems.

I just wanted to gauge your position here, since everyone in the thread seemed to be speaking from the perspective of PTI (a federalist patriot party).

Seems like you're speaking from an apolitical non-nationalist perspective so understandable.

Though I would say that any country in the world would have done what Pakistan did against separatist militants. In fact Pakistan probably is one of the softest states if you observe the actions of others. Don't beat yourself up over it too much.