Pakistan's government has approved a controversial constitutional amendment accused of weakening the power and independence of the judiciary and further undermining the country's democracy.
The 26th constitutional amendment was passed in a secret midnight parliamentary session, marred by secrecy and marred by allegations of kidnapping and intimidating MPs to force them to vote in favor of the bill.
The ruling coalition government lobbied hard for an amendment that would reform the process of appointments to senior judicial positions and give the ruling government the power to choose the chief justice, who is usually the final arbiter in the most politically charged position in Pakistan. notable cases.
In a statement, the International Commission of Judges (ICJ) said the amendment was “a blow to judicial independence, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.”
The coalition government included the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People's Party, and was led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He tried to push through the amendment last month, but lacked a majority in the National Assembly.
This time he managed to obtain the necessary votes, but the opposition accused the government of “arm twisting”, including paying significant bribes to parliamentarians and kidnapping, torture and harassment to give figures.
The coalition government took power in February in an election marked by allegations of fraud and documented evidence against the party of now-jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The ruling government is accused of having the support of Pakistan's powerful military establishment, which has long been accused of meddling in the country's political affairs.
The new constitutional amendment comes amid government fears that the new Supreme Court chief justice, who will be sworn in next month, will launch an investigation into alleged irregularities in the February election. Since the election, Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party has been campaigning for the courts to deal with allegations of election fraud. They promised to hold massive protests against the amendment.
PTI General Secretary Salman Akram Raja said the new rules are meant to ensure that the country's top judges adhere to the government's agenda and that there will be no relief for Khan or the PTI from the backlog of cases they are facing. at the moment. “Everything will be decided by judges chosen by the government,” he said.
Raja alleged that the “system”, a general reference to the military, was behind the amendment. He cited a recent incident in which six senior judges went public with allegations that they were intimidated and pressured by the establishment not to give favorable verdicts in Khan cases. “This is the end of judicial independence,” he said.
However, Law Minister Azam Nasir Tarar denied the allegations and said the parliamentary committee to select the chief justice would have “representation from all major parties”, including opposition parties, and therefore the appointments They would not have political motivations. “The amendments are constitutional,” he said.
Questions have long been raised about the independence of Pakistan's judiciary, which has historically been accused of colluding in serving the military agenda. However, it also defends human rights and freedom of the press.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has issued several orders favorable to Khan, who has been in prison for more than a year and faces more than 100 cases, much to the chagrin of the ruling coalition, which considers him a “terrorist.”
Lawyers and experts said that with this new bill, government interference in the judiciary is now shamefully enshrined in the Constitution. Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed said the new amendments “put the Supreme Court and High Courts permanently under the control of politicians.”
He added: “This moves Pakistan decisively towards an authoritarian state and destroys the very essence of judicial control.
Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, former prime minister of Pakistan, said it was “subjugation of the judiciary by the government.” If a judge does not cooperate with the government, it means that he will be removed,” he said.
