Stake Holders at Stake

 Stake Holders at Stake

27th Constitutional Amendment: Reform, Power, and the People at Risk

By Mubasher Mir

With the passage of the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment by both the Senate and National Assembly, Pakistan has entered a decisive constitutional moment. The government presents the reforms as a path toward greater institutional harmony, national stability and defence modernisation. Yet legal experts, bar councils, provincial parties, and segments of civil society warn that the amendment risks concentrating power, weakening judicial independence, and undermining the federal balance that lies at the heart of Pakistan’s democratic structure.

More importantly — and increasingly voiced across the political spectrum — the real stakeholders of Pakistan are its people, and they are the ones now most at stake. Any constitutional change that reshapes state power must be evaluated primarily through the lens of citizens’ rights, access to justice, and the preservation of democratic accountability.

The amendment revises Article 243 and formally creates the position of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) — a new, constitutionally empowered office that places command of all three services under the Army Chief. The post of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) is abolished. The government argues that this will unify defence strategy and remove structural duplication.

Additionally, the amendment provides constitutional recognition for the rank of Field Marshal, allowing an officer promoted to this status to retain rank, privileges and uniform for life. Critics view this as a form of lifetime institutional immunity, beyond the reach of meaningful oversight.

The creation of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) — tasked with constitutional interpretation, federal-provincial disputes, and inter-governmental conflicts — transfers significant jurisdiction from the Supreme Court. Proponents frame it as a modernisation step; opponents view it as a structural curtailment of the apex court’s historic role as guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights.

Judges may now be transferred between High Courts by the Judicial Commission. If a judge declines transfer, the refusal may be treated as retirement. Critics fear this may pressure judges and compromise independence by enabling indirect control over judicial careers.

Revisions to financial and administrative frameworks potentially dilute provincial autonomy — a reversal of gains secured through the 18th Amendment. Provincial parties in Sindh in particular describe the 27th Amendment as an attack on federal balance and provincial self-governance.

The government maintains the reforms were long overdue. Officials argue that:

A unified defence structure will strengthen coordination and national security.

A specialised constitutional court will reduce backlog and expedite complex federal cases.

Revised federal arrangements will simplify governance and create clarity.

In theory, these objectives align with global best practices — but only when checks and balances remain intact.

A central critique is that the amendment risks institutionalising impunity.

Democracy requires that no individual or institution stand above accountability. Islam reinforces this principle through the concept of hisab — all authority is accountable, ultimately before God.

Creating lifetime privileges for top military leaders contradicts both democratic and Islamic foundations. Legal scholars warn that constitutionalising such immunity shifts Pakistan toward a model where state power may operate beyond scrutiny.

By diverting constitutional matters from the Supreme Court to the new FCC, the amendment weakens the judiciary’s highest platform for interpreting rights, reviewing executive action, and checking excesses of power.

If judicial appointments or transfers appear influenced by political or executive interests, the entire justice system risks being compromised.

Provincial parties and bar councils from Sindh argue the Amendment undermines the federal compact. They fear that increased centralisation — especially over judicial and fiscal domains — may erode provincial rights enshrined under the 18th Amendment. This could widen existing trust deficits between the federation and smaller provinces.

Democracy is sustained not merely by elections but by the distribution of authority, the independence of institutions and the accountability of office-holders. Any shift that over-weights one institution at the expense of others risks long-term destabilisation.

This crucial observation captures the core issue: the real stakeholders are not political parties, military institutions, or judicial forums — they are the people of Pakistan.

Every constitutional amendment must ultimately answer one question:

Does it protect the rights, dignity, and justice of ordinary citizens?

Today, many fear that this Amendment places those very people — the final custodians of Pakistan's sovereignty — at risk in the following ways:

If the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is curtailed, citizens may lose the strongest platform for constitutional protection.

The public depends on a powerful and independent Supreme Court to defend fundamental rights, overturn injustices, and restrain unlawful authority.

History demonstrates that concentrated power often sidelines public interest. When institutions lose balance, grievances rise, and people feel powerless.

For a democracy like Pakistan — diverse, federal, and complex — concentration of power is particularly dangerous.

When provinces perceive encroachment from the Centre, political tensions filter down to communities.

Public trust is already fragile. Any move that sidelines provincial voices risks widening divisions, inflaming protests and inviting instability.

People’s safety and dignity rely on institutions being accountable.

If top offices become insulated from legal review, citizens may rightly fear that the rule of law could apply unequally — one standard for the powerful, another for the powerless.

Thus, while the Amendment’s architects argue it enhances stability, its real test lies in whether the people feel safer, more empowered, and more confident in state institutions. At present, many do not.

Pakistan now stands at an inflection point. The Amendment could, in an ideal setting, strengthen the architecture of governance — but only if implemented with rigorous transparency, oversight mechanisms, and unconditional respect for judicial independence and provincial autonomy.

Alternatively, if implemented without restraint, it could accelerate institutional imbalance, deepen public alienation and weaken the social contract between state and citizen.

To protect the democratic and Islamic principles of accountability — and to ensure the people remain at the centre of national policy — the following steps are essential:

Appointments, transfers and tenure protections must be insulated from executive or military influence.

The CDF and defence structures must remain accountable to Parliament — the representative body of the people.

The federation cannot thrive without strong and respected provincial institutions. The spirit of the 18th Amendment must be upheld.

Public trust requires clarity. Amendments, appointments and strategic decisions must be transparent, subject to review, and open to public scrutiny.

As the real stakeholders, the people of Pakistan deserve a voice. National dialogue — including bar councils, academic experts, provincial leadership, and civil society — must be institutionalised.

The 27th Amendment may be framed by the government as a step toward institutional harmony, but its implications stretch far deeper. By restructuring defence hierarchy, altering judicial jurisdiction, and modifying federal autonomy, the Amendment touches the core of Pakistan’s constitutional identity.

Islam teaches that all authority is accountable before God. Democracy insists all authority is accountable before the people.

Lifetime immunity and concentrated power violate both.

At this historical moment, it is the people of Pakistan who stand as the true custodians of the Constitution. Their rights, security and justice must remain supreme. Any reform that weakens their position — whether through judicial curtailment, provincial disempowerment or unchecked executive authority — risks endangering the very foundations of the state.

For Pakistan to move forward with stability, dignity and democratic strength, the will, welfare and consent of the people must remain the central guiding principle. Their stake cannot be compromised; their voice cannot be ignored. Only then can constitutional reform truly serve the nation rather than destabilise it.