Leaked Bill Reveals "Unprecedented Assault" on Pakistani Constitution
A bill by the military-backed Pakistani government, leaked online before a proposed vote, would cripple the country's judiciary as a check on government power
The Pakistani government is working hard to contain a firestorm of criticism triggered by the leak of a controversial draft bill proposing sweeping constitutional amendments aimed at curtailing the independence of the country’s judiciary.
The proposed constitutional amendments by the ruling coalition, kept secret until their release late Sunday, were expected to be presented by the country’s parliament this week but were temporarily withdrawn at the last minute due to lack of support.
The bill, which has yet to be made available on the parliament’s official website, was leaked just hours before the government intended to present it in the parliament. Details were first circulated on the platform formerly known as Twitter before being reported by Pakistani journalists and triggering public outrage from lawyers aligned with the political opposition. The constitutional changes would reshape Pakistan’s legal landscape, including through the creation of a parallel judicial body called the Constitutional Court. This new entity would take over key responsibilities from the Supreme Court, including the authority to hear cases involving constitutional challenges and fundamental rights.
The draft bill would also extend the retirement age of judges—a change critics say is aimed at prolonging the tenure of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, a figure perceived as being aligned with the ruling military-backed government. Chief Justice Isa has been a central player in recent decisions that have favored the government, including a controversial ruling that stripped the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, led by former Prime Minister Imran Khan, of its electoral symbol and party status ahead of the February 8 general elections this year.
The bill has raised alarms among legal experts and opposition parties, who view it as an attempt to undermine the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. So far, it has also failed to drum up enough support to pass into law.
According to reports, the ruling coalition, which includes the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), failed to secure the necessary majority after a key ally, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl, led by hardline Islamist leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, refused to endorse the amendments. PMLN leader Senator Irfan Siddiqui has since claimed that the government’s attempt to table the amendments has been “postponed indefinitely.”
The PTI, despite having to run its candidates as independents after the party was banned from ballots, garnered a significant number of votes in the February election, dealing a blow to the government’s hopes of securing a two-thirds majority in parliament. A subsequent ruling by another Supreme Court bench restored some of PTI’s rights, including its parliamentary party status, further frustrating the government’s attempts to consolidate power.
The proposed creation of the Constitutional Court is seen by critics as a way to neutralize the Supreme Court’s influence, particularly in cases that challenge the government’s authority. Under the draft amendments, the Constitutional Court’s rulings could not be appealed in the Supreme Court, effectively placing it above Pakistan’s existing judicial hierarchy. The head of the new court would be appointed by the government, with an extended retirement age that coincidentally aligns with Chief Justice Isa’s projected tenure. Isa was originally set to retire next month.
Opposition leaders and independent lawyers have warned that the changes, if passed by parliament, would pave the way for unchecked executive power.
In a letter signed by Qazi Faez Isa’s former counsels, Muneer A. Malik and Faisal Siddiqi, they urged the chief justice to “relinquish his robes with honour” and avoid being drawn into the controversy. They condemned the amendments as “an unprecedented assault on the Constitution and the Supreme Court” and called on the judiciary to resist the government’s efforts to undermine its authority.
Opposition leader and senior lawyer Salman Akram Raja delivered a scathing critique of the proposed constitutional amendments, describing them as “the work of the devil.” He condemned the lawyers behind the drafting, comparing them to “a surgeon who takes out the kidney of a crippled 14-year-old for sale in some dark market.”
The role of Pakistan’s military in pushing for the controversial constitutional amendments has become increasingly apparent. Muneeb Farooq, a Pakistani journalist close to the security establishment, noted that pressure has been placed on parliamentarians to vote in favor of the amendments.
This pressure has also extended to violent attacks on opposition parties in the run up to the vote. On September 9, the Islamabad police raided parliament to arrest opposition lawmakers, targeting members of the PTI. This action followed a significant public demonstration by the party—one of the largest rallies since Khan’s incarceration. The situation escalated when police cut power to the parliamentary compound and plainclothes officers forcibly entered to detain PTI lawmakers sheltering from arrest.
The wife and daughter of Saadullah Baloch, a parliamentarian who won as an independent candidate backed by the PTI, were allegedly abducted, forcing him to come out of hiding and surrender to the military-backed government authorities. PTI alleged that Baloch was being pressured to vote in favor of the amendment.
On Monday, six members of the Pakistan Bar Council approached the Supreme Court, seeking an urgent restraining order against the government’s “judicial reform package.” They argued that the amendments violate the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional separation of powers.
In their petition, they urged the Court to declare the judiciary’s authority to enforce fundamental rights as “sacrosanct” and beyond the reach of parliament. The petition also calls for the proposed amendments to be declared ultra vires, or beyond the parliament’s powers, and asks the court to prevent the government from tabling or passing the bill, as well as suspending its operation if enacted.