ISLAMABAD:Though the federal government has yet to officially introduce the 27th Constitutional Amendment, it has already sparked controversy within Pakistan’s legal circles, even as the Supreme Court continues hearings on review petitions related to its July 12 ruling in the reserved seats case.The debate intensified when Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) President Wajid Gilani expressed support for the proposed amendment, calling it a step toward essential “structural reforms” in the judiciary. However, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) responded sharply, denouncing his endorsement and warning that lawyers in Sindh would strongly resist any move that reintroduces “martial law” or imposes a “judicial One-Unit” system on the country.Concerns Over Constitutional DirectionTariq Mahmood Khokhar, former additional attorney general, noted that several provisions removed from the draft of the 26th Amendment—under political pressure—may now be revived through the 27th. He warned that these changes could lead to further erosion of constitutional norms.According to Khokhar, the current environment favors the return of provisions that could include military courts, a federal constitutional court, a revamped judicial commission, restricted provincial autonomy, reduced judicial independence, curtailed fundamental rights, and a shift toward authoritarian presidential rule.He described this trend as signaling a shift into a “post-constitutional order,” where the rule of law is replaced by rule by law, used primarily as a tool for control. He cautioned that legal institutions and professionals are increasingly becoming complicit in undermining constitutional democracy.Legal Community Questions Supreme Court’s PrioritiesMeanwhile, legal professionals have raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s handling of pending challenges to the 26th Amendment. While the court appears to be expediting proceedings in the reserved seats case—viewed as crucial for allowing the ruling coalition to secure a two-thirds majority—petitions against the 26th Amendment remain unheard.Some lawyers have questioned the composition of the constitutional bench, suggesting that judges who benefited from the 26th Amendment might be reluctant to hear its legal challenges.A Look Back at Constitutional PrecedentsIn the landmark 2015 ruling on the 21st Constitutional Amendment, a majority of Supreme Court judges held that the Constitution’s salient features—including democracy, parliamentary governance, and judicial independence—could not be altered even by constitutional amendment. The ruling, authored by Justice (retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed and supported by eight justices, affirmed that Parliament’s amendment powers are subject to implied limitations under Articles 238 and 239.The court also reaffirmed its own authority to review constitutional amendments for violations of these core principles. Legal observers argue that this precedent reinforces the urgent need for judicial review of both the 26th and proposed 27th Amendments.KBA Blasts IHCBA President Over ‘Secret Support’In a strongly worded statement, the Karachi Bar Association criticized IHCBA President Gilani’s endorsement of a constitutional amendment that “remains unknown to the public.” The KBA accused him of acting as a government proxy and bypassing the legal community.The KBA also condemned reports suggesting that the amendment might introduce a requirement for superior court judges to take fresh oaths, likening it to the PCO oaths imposed by military rulers General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf to pressure the judiciary.The statement further rejected any attempt to allow the transfer or posting of judges across provinces without consent, calling it an attack on judicial independence, federalism, and the autonomy of provincial judiciaries.In a final warning, the KBA declared:> “Let there be no doubt, the lawyers of Sindh strongly reject and shall resist—by any means necessary—any attempt to reintroduce martial law or impose this judicial One-Unit scheme upon the Federation of Pakistan.”
