Pakistan’s government amended the constitution Monday, authorizing parliament to select the Supreme Court chief justice, a move opposition parties and independent critics slammed as an infringement on judicial independence.
Until now, the judge who was second in seniority would automatically take over as the country’s chief justice when the top judge retired at 65. The amendments came just days before Pakistan’s Chief Justice, Qazi Faez Isa, is due to retire on October 25.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ruling coalition approved the constitutional changes during a special parliamentary session that opened on Sunday, a public holiday. The session lasted through the night, wrapping up just before dawn on Monday.
The amendments primarily focus on Pakistan’s judiciary and mandate a special parliamentary committee to nominate the chief justice from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges.
Sharif celebrated the legislation as a “historic day” after his ruling coalition secured the necessary two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution for the 26th time since its passage in 1973. “Today, it has been established that parliament is supreme,” he told lawmakers.
The prime minister mentioned allegations by politicians that the judiciary’s frequent interference had impeded the functioning of successive governments in Pakistan, often resulting in their collapse.
Lawmakers from the opposition party of imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), rejected the amendments as an attempt to subvert the judiciary and described it as a “black day” in the country’s constitutional history.
Khan has been in jail since August 2023 on controversial corruption charges and faces multiple other allegations that he rejects as politically motivated and orchestrated by the powerful military.
PTI and independent critics argued that the Sharif administration amended the constitution quickly to preempt the upcoming transition at the Supreme Court amid concerns that senior judges under Isa might provide relief to Khan in various lawsuits initiated by the government.
The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, or ICJ, also backed opposition concerns, saying Monday’s legislation was “a blow to judicial independence, the rule of law, and human rights protection” in Pakistan.
It noted that the amendments “make significant institutional changes in the structure and functioning” of the judicial system, particularly the Supreme Court and high courts.
The ICJ raised concerns about the absence of public consultations regarding proposed amendments introduced and passed by Parliament in less than 24 hours.
“These changes bring an extraordinary level of political influence over the process of judicial appointments and the judiciary’s own administration,” said Santiago Canton, ICJ’s secretary general. “They 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,” he stated.
Pakistan’s prestigious English-language Dawn newspaper also questioned the motives behind the new law.
“A fear remains that the ruling coalition may try to misuse the amendments to appoint judges of their choice… or elevate a ‘like-minded’ judge to the chief justice’s position,” the paper wrote in a Monday editorial.
Khan, the 72-year-old cricket star-turned-prime minister, was ousted from power in 2022 through an opposition parliamentary vote of no confidence. The move, which the deposed leader rejected as illegal, led to unprecedented political turmoil in nuclear-armed Pakistan, a country of more than 240 million people.
In June, a panel of independent United Nations experts urged Pakistan to end Khan’s incarceration, saying his detention had “no legal basis.”
The military has staged three coups and placed Pakistan under direct dictatorial rule for more than three decades since gaining independence in 1947. Khan and other former prime ministers have claimed that army generals significantly influence the functioning of elected governments, even when they are not in power, charges the military rejects.
