EDITORIAL: 27th Amendment and judicial independence

EDITORIAL: While it remains a far-fetched proposition that the government would be swayed by Amnesty International’s (AI’s) recent criticisms of the 27th Amendment and its call to review the legislation that was rushed through parliament back in November, there is nevertheless a compelling need to take these concerns seriously, given the far-reaching impact on the constitutional promise of an independent judiciary.

The rights body’s description of the amendment as representing the “crescendo of a concerted … attack” on judicial independence, the right to a fair trial and the rule of law may be strongly worded, but it encapsulates anxieties that have been persistently voiced by legal practitioners — including members of the superior judiciary when the bill was first tabled — the opposition and civil society over the embedding of executive influence in vital judicial processes. This development, the AI has argued, has blurred the principle of separation of powers and eroded public confidence in the courts and the broader constitutional order.

Building on these concerns, the rights body has highlighted structural anomalies in the amendment that go beyond mere rhetoric. Chief among them is the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which, the AI cogently argues, lacks safeguards necessary to ensure judicial independence, notably by weakening judges’ security of tenure and shielding the president and other key officeholders from meaningful accountability. By giving the president and prime minister the power to appoint the court’s first chief justice and initial judges, the amendment has entrenched executive influence in a forum now responsible for constitutional interpretation, enforcing fundamental rights, and adjudicating disputes between the federation and the provinces. It is therefore hard to ignore that executive dominance over judicial appointments and transfers has afforded it considerable sway over the trajectory of consequential cases.

Then there is the manner in which the amendment was bulldozed through parliament in a matter of five days, without allowing for a thorough or inclusive debate. For a legislation that so fundamentally transformed the entire architecture of the judiciary and comprehensively watered down the role the Supreme Court had long played in national life, such scrutiny was not merely desirable but essential. Its absence was always likely to invite public mistrust, as well as questions about transparency and the intent driving the reform.

For any democratic polity committed to the rule of law, it is important that while parliamentary authority remains paramount, the judiciary also retains the mandate and autonomy to ensure that parliament’s legislative work complies with the Constitution, and that all institutions function as envisaged by it.

The 27th Amendment, by embedding executive influence in the FCC from its inception, arguably disrupts this balance, and the government now should not be surprised, either at the opprobrium it is receiving at the hands of international rights bodies or at the profound questions raised regarding judicial autonomy and the broader legitimacy of the constitutional framework.

As has been noted in this space before, the country’s institutional balance depends on each branch of the state respecting the limits of its authority while acknowledging the responsibilities of others.

For close to two years now, the ruling set-up has tested these boundaries, first through the 26th Amendment and then with the 27th, reshaping the judiciary’s structure and authority in ways that weakens an already fragile system of checks and balances.

The authorities should acknowledge the strain their actions have placed on the polity, with institutions under pressure, public trust fraying and the careful calibration intended by the Constitution showing cracks. Any far-reaching changes to the architecture of power require careful deliberation, transparency and respect for institutional integrity, lest governance falter and political stability be compromised.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026