Pakistan’s 27th Amendment a threat to rule of law: UN High Commissioner

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk expressed concern that the rushed constitutional amendments could have serious, long term effects on democratic values and the rule of law principles deeply valued by the people of Pakistan.

Turk emphasized that the rapid legal changes could weaken the justice system by limiting its autonomy and placing it under government pressure.

He said, “Pakistan has hastily adopted constitutional amendments that seriously undermine judicial independence and raise grave concerns about military accountability and respect for the rule of law. These changes, taken together, risk subjugating the judiciary to political interference and executive control.”

He further added, “We are concerned that these amendments risk far reaching consequences for the principles of democracy and the rule of law, which the Pakistani people hold dear.”

The UN High Commissioner also stressed that neither the executive nor the legislature should be in a position to control or direct the judiciary, and that judges must be protected from political influence.

He noted, “A core measure of judicial independence is a tribunal’s insulation from political interference by the government. If judges are not independent, experience shows they struggle to apply the law equally and to uphold human rights for all in the face of political pressure.”

The High Commissioner also flagged the immunities granted to the heads of the armed forces, saying this would weaken democratic control over the military.

The amendment, which swiftly passed Parliament and received presidential assent on November 13, establishes the FCC as the top constitutional court and transfers major powers away from the Supreme Court. 

The 27th Amendment changes major institutional arrangements, including creating the FCC with original jurisdiction over constitutional disputes, abolishing the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers and key Articles (184, 186, 191A), allowing the president to transfer high court judges on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission, and granting lifetime immunity to the president and constitutional protection to certain officers.

It also dissolves the office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and concentrates military command under the new post of Chief of Defence Forces.

Two senior Supreme Court justices, Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, have tendered their resignations, calling the amendment a “grave assault on the Constitution.”

Despite the high profile turmoil, the government argues that the changes are essential for governance efficiency and national security reform. Still, the IHC judges’ move hints at escalating judicial protest, which could deepen the institutional crisis.

Concerns over judicial independence were raised in letters from senior justices, including Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Athar Minallah, who requested a full-court review of the amendment.

Notably, the meeting on the matter took place in the Chief Justice’s chambers rather than the usual courtroom setting. The Supreme Court issued no formal comment afterward, citing a lack of consensus among judges.

Legal circles remain sharply divided. Some view the amendment as a modernization measure, while others, including former Attorney-General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, describe it as “an absurd nullity” that undermines the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

With no institutional response forthcoming, the future legal standing of the 27th Amendment and the FCC’s role remains uncertain.