UN warns Pakistan’s new amendment risks eroding judicial independence.
Warning arises amid major shifts in Pakistan’s military.
The warning comes at a delicate moment, as Pakistan navigates major shifts within its military leadership, adding new strain to an already tense political and judicial landscape.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has issued a sharp and timely warning about Pakistan’s newly adopted 27th Constitutional Amendment, cautioning that it could profoundly weaken judicial independence and erode essential safeguards that keep the rule of law intact. His concerns, delivered in a formal statement on Friday, November 28, have sparked intense debate within Pakistan’s legal circles, civil society, and political landscape. The amendment, he said, mirrors the troubling patterns seen in the 26th Amendment passed last year — rushed forward without broad consultation, public transparency, or the meaningful debate that such sweeping constitutional changes require.
Türk noted that both amendments introduce major structural reforms that fundamentally shift how power is distributed among Pakistan’s institutions. He emphasized that the hallmark of a genuinely independent judiciary is its ability to operate free from government influence. The latest reforms, however, seem to nudge the judiciary closer to the orbit of political control at a time when the country’s constitutional balance is already fragile.
At the heart of his warning is the creation of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) — a body that will now exclusively handle constitutional matters. Traditionally, such cases fall under the purview of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, which has historically served as a key check on executive and military power. Türk expressed concern that shifting these responsibilities away from the Supreme Court, while simultaneously giving the executive branch more influence over judicial appointments and transfers, opens the door to greater political interference.
“These changes risk placing the judiciary under political control,” he cautioned. “A core measure of judicial independence is freedom from government interference. Without that protection, courts cannot uphold human rights or apply the law equally.”
One of the most controversial aspects of the amendment is the clause granting lifelong immunity from criminal proceedings to the President and senior military leadership. Türk criticized this provision unequivocally, describing it as deeply problematic for any system that claims to value accountability. Immunity of this scale, he argued, undermines democratic oversight, shields powerful actors from legal scrutiny, and sends a worrying message about the state’s commitment to equal justice.
Legal scholars in Pakistan have similarly voiced fears that such immunity provisions set a dangerous precedent. They worry the amendment may effectively place key decision-makers above the law, eroding the spirit of constitutional equality and weakening the mechanisms that allow citizens to challenge abuses of power.
The timing of the amendment has also sparked widespread attention. On Thursday, November 27, just a day before Türk’s statement, General Asim Munir assumed his new role as Pakistan’s first Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) — a powerful position created under the same constitutional amendment. The role consolidates command of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under a single office for a fixed five-year term, centralizing authority within the military establishment more tightly than ever before.
While supporters of the amendment argue that it streamlines governance and modernizes Pakistan’s constitutional structure, critics see it as part of a broader trend of growing military influence over civilian institutions. Many analysts believe that the concentration of judicial and military authority — combined with a reduction in judicial oversight — may significantly alter Pakistan’s institutional balance.
The amendment introduces several major changes, including:
• Establishing a Federal Constitutional Court specifically to handle constitutional matters previously overseen by the Supreme Court.
• Narrowing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, reducing its ability to interpret constitutional issues or intervene in governance-related disputes.
• Strengthening the executive’s role in judicial appointments, transfers, and administrative decisions regarding the judiciary.
• Providing lifelong immunity from criminal prosecution to the President and senior members of the military leadership.
Each of these changes, Türk warned, raises “serious and credible concerns” about the independence of Pakistan’s courts and the fairness of future legal proceedings.
Civil society organizations in Pakistan have similarly reacted with alarm, calling the amendment “one of the most consequential constitutional shifts in decades.” They argue that judicial independence has already faced strain over recent years, and this amendment risks further tipping the balance of power away from democratic institutions.
The legal community has also begun mobilizing. Multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the amendment have been filed across Pakistan’s courts, with lawyers arguing that the reforms could violate fundamental rights and disrupt the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Many senior lawyers have warned that if the amendment is implemented without judicial review, it may permanently alter Pakistan’s institutional landscape in ways that are difficult to reverse.
The broader political context adds another layer to the issue. Pakistan is currently undergoing significant restructuring within its military leadership, and observers worry that the amendment could serve as a mechanism to formalize and expand military influence within the civilian governance framework. Critics fear that judicial oversight — historically one of the few checks on military authority — may be weakened just as the military’s institutional role is growing.
For now, Pakistan faces a moment of profound constitutional uncertainty. The 27th Amendment has opened new debates about the future of democracy, accountability, and judicial independence in the country. Whether the courts uphold or overturn the amendment, the coming months are likely to shape Pakistan’s legal and political trajectory for years to come.