By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: As the government pushes forward with a contentious proposal to amend the Constitution, the Pakistan Peoples Party, a key ally in the ruling coalition, signaled conditional support on Friday for limited changes to the powers of the armed forces while rejecting other elements that could undermine provincial rights.
The move comes amid broader opposition from political figures and a legal challenge in the Supreme Court that warns of threats to judicial independence.The proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment, expected to be introduced in the Senate soon, has stirred debate over its potential to reshape the judiciary and federal oversight of the military.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif consulted with allies on Thursday to build consensus, but divisions emerged, particularly over provisions that critics say could roll back devolutions granted under the landmark 18th Amendment of 2010.
Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party, addressed reporters after a two-day meeting of the party’s Central Executive Committee, emphasising support for amendments to Article 243, which outlines the federal government’s authority over the armed forces. “In the 27th Amendment, the amendment to (article) 243 must be accepted,” he said.
Bhutto-Zardari specified that the party backs proposals to redesignate the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, create a new Strategic Command position and establish a field marshal rank. “The government has proposed giving the Joint Chiefs a new designation, creating a new position for Strategic Command and a position of Field Marshal. Only this amendment the CEC has allowed me to support,” he said late Thursday night at Bilawal House in Karachi.
The party also agreed in principle to the formation of constitutional courts, provided provinces receive equal representation. “The CEC debated the matter of constitutional courts for two days and said that the party ‘agrees in principle with the idea that constitutional courts should be formed,” Bhutto-Zardari said. However, he stressed that no other proposals had been endorsed, and discussions would continue.
Party insiders confirmed that Friday’s meeting, which began after prayers and extended into the evening, focused narrowly on Article 243. Proposals to federalise education, a function devolved to provinces under the 18th Amendment, and alter the provinces’ share in the National Finance Commission award were outright rejected. “The PPP rejects the proposal for constitutional protection of the provinces’ share,” Bhutto-Zardari said, adding that the party “can never compromise on the financial rights of the provinces.”
The Central Executive Committee also discussed unfinished items from the Charter of Democracy, a 2006 pact between major parties aimed at strengthening civilian rule. “We will engage with the government and see which other points we can reach a consensus on,” Bhutto Zardari said. “If a consensus can be reached with the incumbent government on agenda items not fulfilled under the Charter of Democracy, it would be a welcome step.”
On the transfer of judges, a key aspect of the amendment, the Pakistan Peoples Party offered suggestions to the government. “The government’s suggestion is to do away with the consultation (with the president) and leave the decision (transferring judges) with the parliamentary committee,” Bhutto-Zardari said. He advocated instead for the president to initiate transfers, with possible involvement from the judicial commission. “It is a forum where serious debate can take place and the chief justices and senior judiciary are present.”
The party’s stance reflects internal divisions that surfaced earlier in the day, with initial signals of conditional support for Article 243 changes evolving into a firmer position by evening. Last night, the party had indicated backing for limited military-related tweaks while drawing a “red line” against NFC alterations.
Opposition to the amendment extended beyond the coalition. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl, a former ally now in opposition, vowed on Friday to resist any measures eroding provincial powers granted by the 18th Amendment. “The provinces have a constitutional right to an increased NFC (National Finance Commission) award, not a reduced one,” he told reporters in Islamabad. “If provincial rights were stripped, the JUI-F would strongly oppose it.”
Rehman said his party had agreed in principle on some points but withheld full judgment until seeing the draft. On Article 243, he said if “it is used to affect democracy, the Constitution or politics, we will not accept it. But if it is purely administrative, we will review it first and then decide.”
He criticiced the rushed process, contrasting it with the months-long consensus-building for the 18th Amendment. “When this [27th Amendment] comes forward, we will see how long it takes,” he said, noting that during the recent 26th Amendment, parliamentary input led to the withdrawal of 35 clauses. “We should not repeat practices that raise questions about parliament’s representation of the people.”
Rehman called for broader dialogue involving parliament’s security committee and all stakeholders. “Nothing was being resolved at the moment because the country was relying too heavily on one institution,” he said. “Until we adopt collective thinking, nothing will be fixed.” He emphasised “natural lawmaking” over hasty legislation. “We make unusual laws that society rejects. We must avoid misusing our authority.” He
The amendment’s judicial reforms drew sharp legal scrutiny. On Friday, Barrister Ali Tahir filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging efforts to establish constitutional courts, arguing they would curtail the jurisdiction of the superior judiciary under Articles 184(3) and 199. These provisions grant the Supreme Court authority over public importance matters involving fundamental rights and empower high courts similarly.
“The said proposal, as publicly reported, contemplates the establishment of separate ‘Constitutional Courts’ and the curtailment or transfer of the existing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the high courts of Pakistan conferred under Articles 184(3) and 199 of the Constitution,” the petition stated. “Such an attempt, if permitted to proceed, would fundamentally alter the constitutional framework, destroy the independence of the judiciary, violate the doctrine of separation of powers, and extinguish the citizens’ right of access to justice and judicial review guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”
It argued that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is an “essential, inviolable, and non-amendable feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure.” The petition sought to restrain state organs from advancing the bill, including debating or voting on it in parliament, until the case is resolved. It warned that any amendment subordinating the judiciary to the executive or legislature would be “contrary to the supremacy of the Constitution and therefore void ab initio.”
Further, it requested interim directions to protect judicial independence during the plea’s pendency and affirmed the Supreme Court’s role as the “ultimate guardian of the Constitution, empowered and obligated to preserve, protect, and defend the constitutional framework, including its own jurisdiction, against any encroachment, whether actual or imminent.”
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
