ICJ condemns 26th Amendment as threat to judicial independence

Geneva: The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has strongly criticized the swift passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, calling it a severe blow to judicial independence and the rule of law.

The amendment, which was approved by both houses of parliament, introduces significant changes to the judiciary's functioning, including the reduction of the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers and limiting the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) term to three years.

Key provisions of the amendment empower the prime minister to select the CJP from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges. The ICJ voiced its concerns, emphasizing that these changes severely compromise judicial independence.

In his statement, ICJ Secretary General Santiago Canton condemned the amendment, saying it introduces an "extraordinary level of political influence" over the judicial appointment process and the judiciary's administration. He warned that these reforms weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on other branches of the state and to protect human rights.

The ICJ also took issue with the manner in which the amendment was passed, noting the lack of public consultation and the speed at which the bill was turned into law. "It is alarming that a constitutional amendment of such significance was pushed through in less than 24 hours, without public engagement," said Canton.

The amendment's changes to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) were also criticized. The ICJ warned that these modifications could lead to increased political influence over the JCP, undermining its independence.

Additionally, it expressed concerns about the lack of clear criteria for appointing the CJP and the removal of inefficient judges, stating that the absence of defined standards opens the door to political manipulation.

While acknowledging that judicial reforms may be necessary to improve efficiency and accountability, the ICJ concluded that the 26th Amendment represents an effort to bring the judiciary under executive control, violating key principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers.