ICJ criticises FCC’s formation, judicial appointment criteria, and sweeping immunities under Articles 248, 243
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has raised serious concerns over Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment, describing it as a “flagrant attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” as it became law with the signature of President Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday.
The amendment, passed a day earlier by Parliament and signed into law by the president, has now become part of the Constitution. “The changes made to the judicial system in the 27th amendment are alarming,” said Santiago Canton, ICJ Secretary-General. “They will significantly impair the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive accountable and protect the fundamental human rights of the people of Pakistan.”
The ICJ said it was particularly concerned about the changes introduced under the 27th Amendment, noting that—alongside the 26th Amendment passed in October 2024—it fundamentally alters the structure of the judiciary and undermines its independent function in multiple ways.
Read: Constitution rejigged 27th time
Taking aim at the establishment of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) and the criteria for judicial appointments, the ICJ pointed out that the amendment fails to define the basis for appointments or require reasons for selections, beyond general qualifications for serving as an FCC judge.
It added that international standards require the appointing body to be independent of the executive, a principle that is “clearly not met” in the appointment of the FCC chief justice and the first batch of FCC judges. The commission stressed that clear procedures and objective criteria are essential under international norms for judicial appointments.
The ICJ also raised objections to the provision that the FCC chief justice and senior-most FCC judge will serve as members of both the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)—responsible for judicial appointments—and the Supreme Judicial Council, which oversees judicial accountability. The body termed this arrangement inconsistent with the principle of judicial independence.
Read More: President Zardari signs 27th Constitutional Amendment into law
Referring to the 26th Amendment, the ICJ voiced concern over the method of appointing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the FCC, noting that the new amendment adopts the same opaque procedure for the selection of the FCC chief justice after the first incumbent retires.
It further observed that the provision sets no criteria or grounds on which the Supreme Parliamentary Committee (SPC) will nominate the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or FCC, while mandating that its meetings be held in camera.
The ICJ also decried the new composition of the JCP, which now includes the chief justices of both the FCC and the Supreme Court, the next senior-most judges of each court, and one judge jointly nominated by both chief justices. The remaining members are unchanged.
Also Read: President can’t be arrested, booked in any case for lifetime, new clause added on PPP’s demand
Before the 26th Amendment, the JCP was composed predominantly of judges. However, its revised structure now includes two members of the National Assembly, two senators, and one woman or non-Muslim representative nominated by the National Assembly speaker. The law minister, attorney general, and a representative of the bar continue to serve as members.
Calling the revised composition “a cause for concern,” the ICJ warned that the inclusion of executive appointees and political figures in the JCP allows for “direct political influence” over judicial appointments, as judicial members now form a minority. For appointments to the Supreme Court and FCC, only five out of thirteen members of the JCP are judges.
The ICJ secretary general also raised alarm over amendments to Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the transfer of High Court judges. He noted that the amendment fails to specify criteria or establish a transparent mechanism to guide transfer decisions, leaving room for arbitrary or punitive transfers rather than moves made in the public interest.
Read More: CJP Afridi convenes full court to discuss 27th Amendment
Referring to international standards on judicial independence, the ICJ questioned the rationale for allowing the removal of judges who refuse transfers, asking how such refusal could amount to “serious misconduct.” It reiterated that under international norms, judges should only be removed on “serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence.”
The commission also expressed grave concern over the sweeping immunities granted under Articles 248 and 243 through the 27th Amendment. The amendment grants the president lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest, as well as protections from civil suits. It also extends similar immunities to the ranks of Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet, and Marshal of the Air Force — ranks currently held by the Chief of the Armed Forces.
Calling these immunities “contrary to core rule of law principles,” the ICJ said they violate the tenets of accountability, access to justice, and equality before the law. “No public official should ever be entirely unaccountable,” it said, warning that such provisions open the door to unlawful or arbitrary exercise of power without consequence.
