Former judge issues strong ‘warning’: ‘Controversial 26th Constitutional Amendment threatens judicial independence’
ISLAMABAD: Justice Shahid Jameel, a former judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC), issued a stark warning on Thursday that the controversial 26th Constitutional Amendment threatens to dismantle judicial independence and undermine democracy, drawing unsettling parallels to authoritarian models such as China’s.
Justice Jameel, who resigned last year amid frustrations over political pressure and interference in the judiciary, condemned the 26th Constitutional Amendment as “the darkest document ever passed by this country’s parliament.”
Speaking at a roundtable of senior lawyers calling for the immediate repeal of all illegal amendments to the Constitution of Pakistan, he accused major political parties of colluding to weaken the judiciary, turning it into a tool for entrenched power rather than an independent arbiter of the law.
“The 26th Amendment is essentially a new Provisional Constitutional Order,” Justice Jameel said, referring to the country’s history of military coups that often began with efforts to control the courts and legitimise authoritarian rule.
“The very political parties that once championed the 1973 Constitution and the slogan ‘Respect the Vote’ are now enabling this systemic takeover.”
The amendment, he warned, threatens to replicate a governance model akin to China’s – where judicial authority is subordinated to the state, and democratic checks and balances are severely curtailed.
In China’s system, courts serve as extensions of the ruling Communist Party’s will, suppressing dissent and concentrating power under an authoritarian regime.
Justice Jameel indicated Pakistan risked sliding towards a similar path if the legal community and broader public failed to resist. He also sounded the alarm over preparations for a forthcoming “27th Amendment,” which could further consolidate state control over the judiciary and political processes.
He called on the legal fraternity and bar councils to take a decisive stand against the amendment, urging younger lawyers in particular to spearhead the defence of constitutionalism and judicial independence.
Prominent lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan, who led the Lawyers’ Movement against General Pervez Musharraf’s military regime from 2007 to 2009, reflected on his pivotal role in the campaign to restore the judiciary during that period.
He revealed that Musharraf had attempted to sway him through intermediaries, including Tariq Aziz, the general’s principal secretary, as well as Iqbal Z Ahmed, Brigadier Kallu, Dr Khalid Ranjha, and Jehangir Zafrullah, with an offer to become prime minister.
Despite being a sitting member of the National Assembly, he said he declined the offer. He added that by offering him the prime ministership, General Musharraf sought to sideline him from the lawyers’ movement to ensure its failure – a maneuver witnessed by Imran Khan.
Salman Akram Raja, secretary general of the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and a prominent lawyer, echoed these concerns.
He condemned the 2024 elections as “stolen” and decried what he called a “system based on lies” designed to silence both the judiciary and independent media.
“This is a battle for the soul of society,” Raja said, referencing repeated violations of privacy and fundamental rights over recent years.
Barrister Ali Zafar, another noted lawyer, emphasised the non-negotiable nature of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
He criticised political parties, parliament, and legal institutions for abdicating their responsibilities, noting a historical pattern where rulers manipulated judicial appointments to maintain control.
“The 26th Amendment has severely damaged judicial independence. No national issue can be resolved without it,” Zafar said.
The legal community, united in opposition, vowed to continue resisting what they described as an illegitimate regime – one installed through manipulation of democratic mandates by the powers that be.
While acknowledging that those imposing “law of the jungle” might prevail temporarily, they asserted such rule would never be sustainable.
The legal community warned that the existing “hybrid regime” in the country reflects a deepening governance crisis, with constitutional safeguards steadily eroded under the pretext of legislative amendments.
They cautioned that amid unprecedented political interference in the judiciary, Pakistan stands at a critical crossroads.
They called upon civil society, including lawyers, students, workers, and others, to determine whether they can mobilise effectively to uphold the rule of law before democratic norms are irreversibly compromised.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025