In a startling development at the Lawyers’ Convention in Karachi, concerns have been raised regarding a proposed constitutional amendment that may significantly alter the judicial landscape of Pakistan. According to the claims made at the convention, this amendment will grant the General Headquarters (GHQ), under the Chief of Army Staff, the authority to appoint Supreme Court judges.
The legal fraternity is up in arms over the potential consequences of such an amendment. The key concern voiced by many is that this move would effectively place the judiciary under the control of the military, diminishing the judiciary’s independence. It is feared that Pakistan’s judicial system, already burdened with several challenges, will be weakened further by this encroachment.
If passed, the Chief of Army Staff will gain unprecedented power over the country’s legal system, specifically in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges. Legal experts warn that this would allow the military to influence judicial rulings, potentially leading to decisions that serve the interests of GHQ rather than upholding the rule of law.
Speakers at the convention likened this move to the actions of the East India Company during British colonial rule. The analogy draws a parallel between how colonial powers manipulated local systems for their benefit and how the military might exploit this proposed law to establish control over one of the most crucial pillars of democracy—tthe judiciary.
This fear is compounded by the sense that certain political figures and institutions are becoming “slaves of GHQ,” a term used by some legal experts at the convention to highlight how they perceive the military’s growing influence over civilian matters.
The Karachi Lawyers’ Convention saw impassioned speeches from several prominent figures in Pakistan’s legal community. The lawyers vowed to resist any attempt to weaken the country’s judiciary, emphasising that their profession plays a pivotal role in defending Pakistan’s democratic structure. According to them, an independent judiciary is essential to ensure that justice is served impartially, without interference from any external forces, including the military.
Some legal minds referred to this amendment as a “bone to the dog,” suggesting that the military is being offered an undue advantage in exchange for loyalty from certain political factions. This metaphor underscores the concerns that such constitutional changes would not benefit the nation but rather serve a narrow set of interests.
The convention concluded with a strong call for legal resistance. Many vowed to take the matter to the courts should the amendment come into effect. There are discussions of launching a national campaign to inform the public about the dangers this constitutional amendment poses to Pakistan’s democratic system. The speakers stressed that the legal community, civil society, and ordinary citizens must come together to safeguard the sanctity of the judiciary.
As this issue develops, it remains to be seen how the government and the military respond to the rising opposition from the legal fraternity. But one thing is certain: Pakistan’s lawyers have made it clear that they will not allow the judiciary to become a pawn in the hands of any institution, no matter how powerful.
