UN Warns Pakistan’s New Constitutional Amendments Threaten Judicial Independence

At the centre of the controversy is the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), a new judicial body that now has exclusive authority over constitutional matters.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has raised serious alarm over Pakistan's newly adopted constitutional amendments, warning that the changes have profound implications for the separation of powers, judicial independence, and democratic governance in the country. The amendments, adopted on 13 November in a fast-tracked process with minimal consultation, have sparked widespread concern among legal experts, civil society organisations, and international observers.

Major Restructuring of Pakistan's Judicial System

At the centre of the controversy is the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), a new judicial body that now has exclusive authority over constitutional matters. Previously, such cases were handled by Pakistan's Supreme Court, which played a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and adjudicating issues of national importance.

Under the amendments:

• The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is now restricted to civil and criminal matters.

• Constitutional interpretation, fundamental rights cases, and major political disputes are now under the authority of the newly formed FCC.

• The first Chief Justice and founding judges of the FCC have already been appointed directly by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, bypassing established judicial appointment mechanisms.

Türk stressed that these changes "run counter to the separation of powers that underpin the rule of law" and could allow political actors to influence judicial outcomes.

Concerns Over Politicised Judicial Appointments

A major point of criticism is the revised system for appointing, transferring, and promoting judges. The new model significantly reduces the influence of Pakistan's judicial institutions—particularly the Judicial Commission of Pakistan—and enhances the role of the executive.

Given Pakistan's historically fraught relationship between the judiciary and political leadership, human rights experts fear that the amendments could allow the ruling authorities to place loyalists in key judicial positions.

"These changes, taken together, risk subjugating the judiciary to political interference and executive control," Türk said. "Neither the executive nor legislative should be in a position to control or direct the judiciary."

He noted that judicial independence is a bedrock principle essential for guaranteeing equal treatment under the law and protecting citizens' rights against abuses of state power.

Lifetime Immunity for Top State and Military Figures

One of the most contentious elements of the amendment is the introduction of lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest for several high-ranking state and military officials, including:

• The President

• The Field Marshal

• The Marshal of the Air Force

• The Admiral of the Fleet

Such wide-ranging immunity provisions are virtually unprecedented in democratic systems and have drawn sharp criticism for undermining accountability.

"Sweeping immunity provisions like these weaken the rule of law and shield powerful individuals from scrutiny," Türk said. "Accountability is a cornerstone of human rights protections and democratic control of the armed forces."

A Troubling Legislative Pattern

The newly adopted amendment follows last year's 26th Amendment, which was also passed in an accelerated manner and criticised for bypassing public debate. Türk emphasised that the repeated use of rushed legislative processes reflects a worrying pattern.

Both amendments were introduced without:

• Adequate consultation with the legal community

• Input from civil society organisations

• Parliamentary debate proportionate to their constitutional impact

Human rights observers warn that limiting public participation erodes democratic legitimacy and increases the risk of executive overreach.

Implications for Democracy and Rule of Law

The High Commissioner expressed deep concern that the amendments could weaken key safeguards designed to prevent abuse of power and ensure fair governance.

He highlighted several likely long-term consequences:

• Erosion of judicial independence, reducing the ability of courts to check executive actions

• Enhanced political control over constitutional interpretation

• Decline in public trust in the justice system

• Weakened accountability, especially in cases involving the military

• Increased risk of human rights violations, particularly if courts are less willing or able to challenge unlawful actions

• Greater instability, as politicised judicial systems often struggle to resolve national crises impartially

Türk emphasised that the Pakistani people have historically upheld and defended democratic values, including judicial independence, often at significant personal and political cost.

"I am concerned that these amendments risk far-reaching consequences for the principles of democracy and rule of law which the Pakistani people hold dear," he said.

Calls for Reconsideration and Broader Consultation

The UN Human Rights Office urged Pakistan's authorities to:

• Reconsider the amendments

• Restore meaningful public participation in constitutional reforms

• Ensure judicial appointments remain insulated from political influence

• Review immunity provisions in line with international human rights norms

• Strengthen—not weaken—the independence of judicial institutions

Legal experts across Pakistan also warn that the new system may face constitutional challenges and could trigger prolonged institutional uncertainty.

As domestic and international scrutiny intensifies, human rights advocates stress that genuine reform must reflect public input, respect constitutional safeguards, and uphold the rule of law.