The government made a messy attempt to bulldoze a controversial constitutional amendment package but failed much to the relief of all those who want undiluted rule of law and justice in the country. What caused more confusion and uncertainty was the way the ruling PML-N government tried to push through the disputed legislation.

It was a hush-hush affair about which even members of the ruling alliance had little information. At one time there were many drafts of the bill in circulation with no one knowing which one was was authentic.

When finally unfurled, the amendment bill turned to be a dubious one primarily designed to abridge the independence of the judiciary and sap its power to adjucate fairly and freely on matters of dispute. While confusion and rumours reigned supreme and government leaders used duble-speak to convince legislatores to vote in favour of the bill, it was Maulana Fazlur Rahman who called the government’s bluff and said that a decision in the matter will be taken only after a full parliamentary debate and discussion.

A constitutional amendment bill is no ordinary piece of legislation. So it must be debated in parliament as well as in civil society forums for a detailed and thorough evaluation regarding its social and political impact. As the proposed bill was mainly focused on the structure and working of the judiciary, it was all the more important that it was shared widely and thrown open to public debate. But the PML-N government went about in a dubious and secretive manner which caused misgivings in every mind. Quetions were raised about the ulterior motive behind the move. Answera came when contents of the bill were made public.

The constitution amendment package contains many controversial clauses which are a veiled attempt to greatly restrict the independence of the judiciary. For example, it proposes to abolish the jurisdiction of the apex court in relation to constitutional petitions. All such cases shall go to a new constitutional court headed by a chief justice appointed by the president on the sole advice of the prime minister. The president shall also hand-pick the remaining judges of the constitutional court after consulting with the newly-appointed chief justice. Besides, no court (old or new) shall have the power to examine the actions of officials acting under “national security” laws.

Further, high court judges or cases can be transferred, without consent, from one high court to another. The specious argument is that superior courts have become too politically partisan, and this situation needs to be corrected. But the solution suggested is worse than the problem because under the proposed legislation as  constitutional cases will be heard not by independent judges but by those appointed by the ruling political party. Another clause seeks to deprive the judiciary of its power to examine actions taken under “national security” laws and introduces legislation leaving judges more vulnerable to executive pressure.

Another strike at the independence of the judiciary is the clause in the package which provides that as initially, even in future the chief justice of the constitutional court shall neither be appointed by seniority nor by judicial commission. He shall be appointed from among the three senior-most judges of the constitutional court on the recommendation of a National Assembly committee in which members of the ruling party will be in a majority.

No wonder, the lawers community has reacted sharply to the proposed constitutional package and called upon Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa to stay away from the controversy. In a statement, Muneer A. Malik and Faisal Siddiqi, advocates Supreme Court, urged CJP Isa to relinquish his robes with honour on Oct 25, 2024, and said that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah will deservedly be the de jure CJP on the dawn of Oct 26. They also asked CJP Isa not to be a nominee for any appointment for any proposed constitutional court or bench. They called the government move an unprecedented assault on the Constitution and Supreme Court and the High Courts through a dubious and questionable constitutional amendments package.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Shehzad Shaukat has expressed surprise as to why the government is getting so secretive on the constitutional package and not bringing it to the designated forums for proper discussion, making the whole nation speculate on the issue. Various lawyer bodies have also declared that they would resist if the government tried to enhance the retirement age of judges or made any person-specific constitutional amendment as the Supreme Court had already declared null and void person-specific legislation. The proposed constitution amendment bill has been rejected by the nation as a whole. The message is loud and clear and the government should not miss it.