Pakistan approved a sweeping constitutional amendment on Wednesday, expanding the powers of the army chief while restricting those of the Supreme Court.
The measure, passed by a two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament, alters the institutional balance of power and further entrenches the military’s supremacy in a country that has been directly ruled by army generals for over half of its 78-year history.
The upper house had already cleared it two days earlier, and President Asif Ali Zardari signed it into law on Thursday.
Opposition members from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), founded by jailed former premier Imran Khan, boycotted the vote and tore up copies of the bill in protest.
While such amendments usually require weeks or months of consideration, this one took just days to sail through the legislature.
Critics slammed the manner in which it was rammed through parliament, with minimal public debate considering its far-reaching implications and potential to concentrate more power in the hands of the military and the ruling coalition.
But Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hailed the amendment as a step toward institutional harmony and national unity.
Military leaders to enjoy lifelong privileges and immunity
The 27th Amendment to Pakistan’s constitution will create a new post of chief of defense forces (CDF), to be held by the head of its army, Field Marshal Asim Munir.
The position gives the army chief control also over the navy and the air force.
Munir, who became army chief in November 2022, was promoted to field marshal and given a five-star rank in May, just days after Pakistan ended its four-day clash with India.
He is only the second Pakistani military officer — after Field Marshal Ayub Khan in the 1960s — to hold the five-star rank.
The latest amendment grants Munir and other top-most military leaders lifelong privileges and protections.
Any officer promoted to field marshal, marshal of the air force, or admiral of the fleet will now retain their rank and privileges for life, remain in uniform, and enjoy permanent immunity from criminal proceedings.
This in a country where the army is involved in numerous coups and faces accusations of undermining democratic institutions.
The last time Pakistan saw direct military rule was under General Pervez Musharraf, who resigned in August 2008.
‘Very dangerous’ or mere delineation of powers?
“This amendment would be considered draconian even by martial law standards,” Osama Malik, a senior constitutional law expert based in Islamabad, told DW.
He stressed that granting permanent immunity to military leaders — especially by elected lawmakers — is “highly condemnable” and “very dangerous.”
“If the military chief in the future suspends parliament and abrogates parts of the constitution, there cannot be any legal action against him because of absolute immunity.”
But Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, president of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) think tank, rejected concerns that the amendment increases authoritarianism in the nuclear-armed nation of more than 250 million people.
In his view, it’s merely a formalization of the role of field marshal and delineation of powers.
“Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role has extended within the military and not necessarily into the civilian sphere,” he told DW. “I don’t think authoritarianism has been formalized.”
Maria Sultan, chairperson of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) University in Islamabad, echoed this view. “I think this defined legal and constitutional backing to the role of the field marshal will strengthen the balance of power and the state,” she said.
How will it impact the judiciary?
The constitutional change also has ramifications for the judiciary as it seeks to reduce the remit of the Supreme Court.
A new Federal Constitutional Court, headed by its own chief justice, will be set up and its judges will be appointed by the government. It will have exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional cases.
The government argues that the reform is necessary to speed up court cases and improve the delivery of justice.
But the move will strip the Supreme Court of its original powers and diminish the role of a constitutional body that has acted as a check on unfettered government power in recent years.
The amendment also bars courts from questioning any constitutional change “on any ground whatsoever.”
Another clause gives the president power to transfer High Court judges on the recommendation of a judicial commission, raising fears that it could be used to sideline dissenting judges.
“The judiciary had been overreaching for quite some time, and now the legislature and executive are asserting to create a balance,” said Mehboob, of the PILDAT think tank.
Tightening government control?
But legal experts warn that the changes could erode judicial independence and oversight.
“The amendment delivers another blow to democracy by further emasculating an independent judiciary,” Maleeha Lodhi, a political commentator and former diplomat, told DW.
She said it “further skewed the civil-military balance to the latter’s advantage,” and “tightens the government’s control of the judiciary.”
Malik, the constitutional law expert, agrees.
“The Supreme Court will be below the Federal Constitutional Court and bound by its rules, making the latter technically supreme,” he stressed. “These changes would destroy even the facade of a free judiciary, so lawyer and civil society groups should oppose them.”
Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru
