The government’s move to push through the 27th Constitutional Amendment appears to be one of the most consequential and controversial constitutional interventions in Pakistan’s recent history. Reports suggest that the amendment seeks to abolish the office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, creating a new and far more powerful post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Under this arrangement, the CDS would effectively become the supreme head of the armed forces, exercising authority over the Army, Navy, and Air Force an unprecedented concentration of military power in a single office.
While the government insists that this change is meant to “streamline command structures” and “ensure coordination among the three services,” critics view it as an attempt to militarize the system further, blurring the constitutional separation between civilian and military domains. The creation of such an office, without adequate parliamentary debate or public consensus, risks disturbing the delicate institutional balance that the Constitution seeks to maintain.
Equally alarming are the proposed changes to the judiciary, which strike at the very heart of Pakistan’s democratic framework. The amendment reportedly seeks to clip the powers of the Supreme Court and establish a new Constitutional Court, which will replace or override some functions of the apex court. Justice Aminuddin Khan is said to be under consideration as the first Chief Justice of this new court. This move, if implemented, would amount to a restructuring of the judicial hierarchy, undermining both the independence and authority of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution.
Understandably, legal experts, senior lawyers, and civil society leaders have sounded the alarm. They have written to Chief Justice, urging him to convene a Full Court meeting to deliberate on the implications of the proposed amendment. Their concern is not misplaced. If passed in haste and without judicial input, the 27th Amendment could deliver a fatal blow to the independence of the judiciary, which is already under immense political and institutional pressure.
Adding to the controversy, the opposition has announced a complete boycott of the amendment process, arguing that legislation of such historic significance cannot and should not be passed without consensus. The absence of opposition participation will inevitably rob the process of legitimacy and credibility. Constitutional changes should reflect national consensus, not partisan expediency. Yet, the government appears determined to rush the amendment through Parliament, reportedly before November 27, when the current Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee is due to retireba timeline that raises serious questions about intent and urgency.
The haste itself is revealing. Rarely in Pakistan’s history has a constitutional amendment been introduced to empower the public, strengthen democracy, or improve governance. Most amendments have served the ruling elite political or otherwise. If the 27th Amendment goes through it will once again demonstrate how constitutional engineering is used to consolidate power, not distribute it.
One of the most disturbing elements of the proposed amendment is the provision shielding the President from prosecution, effectively granting lifelong immunity. Such a clause not only contradicts the principles of accountability and equality before the law but also runs counter to Islamic injunctions, which emphasize that no individual is above justice.
Moreover, while the amendment to Article 243, which deals with the command of the armed forces, may appear to have little immediate impact on the daily lives of ordinary citizens, the provisions affecting the judiciary will directly influence the lives of the common people. When judicial independence is compromised, justice becomes selective, delayed, or denied—especially for the poor and marginalized. The ordinary citizen depends on the courts for protection from abuse of power, for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and for the redress of grievances. A weakened judiciary means a weakened democracy, and ultimately, a weakened society.
Sadly, Pakistan’s constitutional amendments have almost always been self-serving exercises. No amendment has ever been proposed to eliminate corruption, ensure universal education, or guarantee free healthcare. None have sought to make justice accessible or public service efficient. Instead, amendments have been introduced to extend tenures, neutralize opponents, or legitimize unconstitutional actions after the fact. This pattern continues unabated, eroding the very spirit of constitutionalism.
The 27th Amendment, as it stands, risks plunging Pakistan into another period of institutional imbalance and democratic uncertainty. Rather than focusing on national priorities economic recovery, education reform, poverty alleviation, and governance the state seems preoccupied with political maneuvering and institutional restructuring. The country’s constitutional architecture is being reshaped not for the people, but around personalities.
If history is any guide, constitutional amendments passed in haste, without consultation or consent, have always led to long-term instability. The 8th and 17th Amendments are stark reminders of how such moves can distort power structures for decades. The proposed 27th Amendment risks joining that ignominious list.
It is time for Parliament, the judiciary, civil society, and the media to raise their collective voice. The Constitution is not a tool for convenience it is the sacred contract between the state and its people. Any attempt to weaken its foundations in the name of expediency or reform must be resisted.
Pakistan’s future depends not on more power for the powerful, but on stronger institutions, an independent judiciary, and a government accountable to the people. The 27th Amendment, as proposed, threatens all three. If democracy is to survive, this amendment must be revisited, debated, and, if necessary, rejected.
In the end, the real strength of a nation lies not in its generals or politicians, but in the rule of law and the will of its people.
