GENEVA (MNN); The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, has expressed deep concern over Pakistan’s recently approved constitutional amendments, saying they weaken judicial independence, reduce military accountability, and challenge the country’s democratic rule of law.
In a statement from Geneva, Turk said that the latest amendment – similar to the 26th amendment passed last year – was approved without broad consultation with the legal community or civil society. He cautioned that such changes go against the principle of separation of powers, which is essential for protecting human rights.
According to the new framework approved on November 13, constitutional cases will now be overseen by a newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), taking authority away from the Supreme Court, which will now be limited to civil and criminal matters. The UN noted that alterations in the process of appointing, promoting, and transferring judges could compromise the judiciary’s structural independence.
Turk highlighted that the president and prime minister have already selected the chief justice and initial FCC judges, warning this could expose courts to political influence. He emphasised that neither the executive nor parliament should control the judiciary, as judicial independence ensures equal implementation of the law and protects fundamental rights.
The statement also pointed to the 27th amendment, which grants lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest to the president, field marshal, air force marshall and admiral of the fleet. Turk said such sweeping protection undermines accountability, a core pillar of democratic systems and oversight of armed institutions.
He warned that the amendments could have far-reaching consequences for democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan.
The amendments were signed into law by the president on November 13, shortly after the Senate passed the bill for a second time amidst opposition protests. Senate Chairman Yousuf Raza Gilani announced that 64 votes supported the amendment and four opposed it, securing the two-thirds majority required.
Opposition members chanted slogans against the legislation during voting, calling it unacceptable and damaging to the Constitution, but the bill was approved clause-by-clause before being formally passed.
