Pakistan’s 26th Amendment Ordinance aims to address the country’s legal and political crisis by proposing a “Federal Constitutional Court.” This would relieve the Supreme Court’s workload and allow its judges to focus more on judicial matters than on political ones. The amendment also eliminates the connection between crime and the court, suggesting military tribunals to combat terrorism. Critics argue that these courts violate human rights, but such measures are not unusual in countries with persistent crime rates. The amendment also circumscribes the democratic process by deleting Article 63-A, which allows political parties to exclude members who vote against the party line. Adoption still requires extensive political efforts and public support.
Pakistan is at a critical juncture in its legal and political history. The proposal of the 26th Amendment positions the country to solve long-standing inefficiencies in its judicial system, enhance legislative clarity, and defend democratic norms. A Federal Constitutional Court is crucial to this amendment, as it would help alleviate the Supreme Court’s backlog and allow it to focus on its core responsibility of dispensing justice. This opinion article strongly endorses the 26th Amendment as being in the public interest and essential for the stability and advancement of Pakistan’s democracy and judicial system.
The Basis of the 26th Amendment: Public Interest
At its heart, the 26th Amendment reflects public interest by attempting to rectify the problems plaguing Pakistan’s courts. With almost 60,000 ongoing cases, the Supreme Court has become overburdened, frequently shifting its focus from judicial matters to political and constitutional issues. The implications are dire: delays in justice impose substantial social, moral, and economic hardships on Pakistani citizens. A legal system that fails to produce timely rulings weakens public trust and erodes the country’s law and order.
Constitutional Courts, which deal with constitutional and political issues, are a well-established tradition worldwide. In countries such as Germany, South Africa, and Italy, Constitutional Courts simplify judicial processes by distinguishing between constitutional and conventional legal concerns. Given the rising judicial crisis in Pakistan, similar measures are essential to ensure that the court remains efficient and effective. The Federal Constitutional Court proposed in the 26th Amendment would clear the backlog and refocus the Supreme Court on delivering justice.
Addressing the Supreme Court’s Role in Politics
One of the most alarming developments in Pakistan’s contemporary judicial system is the Supreme Court’s increasing involvement in constitutional and political issues. Rather than guaranteeing justice, the Supreme Court is often seen engaging in matters that raise the profiles of concerned judges, granting them political clout rather than focusing on their primary task. This trend has harmed the judiciary’s legitimacy, making it appear as a tool for political maneuvering rather than an unbiased institution.
The 26th Amendment seeks to address this situation by establishing a distinct Federal Constitutional Court. This would allow the Supreme Court to concentrate on its long-overdue duty of clearing its backlog and delivering justice to those who have waited for years. It also satisfies a long-standing goal of political parties, as expressed in the 2006 Charter of Democracy, emphasizing that the amendment responds to public demand rather than individual choice. The proposed Court would not diminish the judiciary but rather strengthen its position as an independent pillar of the state, free from political interference.
The Global Norm of Parliamentary Oversight on the Judiciary
Opponents of the 26th Amendment may argue that it threatens judicial independence, but they fail to recognize that legislative scrutiny of the courts is the global standard. In democracies around the world, legislative bodies often play a role in the functioning and accountability of the judiciary. The establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court in Pakistan would not diminish judicial independence but rather enhance efficiency. The judicial system would remain independent, with the new court focusing solely on constitutional issues, allowing the rest of the judiciary to operate without interruption.
Furthermore, the 26th Amendment eliminates the connection between crime and the court. Pakistan has long struggled to prosecute and convict criminals, including terrorists, allowing a culture of impunity to thrive. Establishing military tribunals, which have proven effective in combating terrorism, can be a crucial step toward solving this inefficiency. Those who endanger national security must face swift and appropriate punishment. If the traditional judiciary is unable to do so, alternative measures must be implemented to protect the rights of citizens who have been victims of crime and terrorism.
Military Courts and the Right to Justice
Critics of military courts often claim that such institutions violate human rights. However, it is critical to ask: Do only terrorists have human rights, or do the victims and defenders of society also deserve speedy justice? No terrorist has been appropriately punished by Pakistani courts, even in cases where the evidence was indisputable, such as the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The judiciary’s inability to prosecute criminals has empowered terrorists and their followers.
The formation of military courts in such a challenging environment is not an unusual step. Countries with persistent crime rates, such as Colombia and Italy, have implemented similar strategies to restore order. In Pakistan, these courts will reform a dysfunctional and inefficient system, ensuring that those who threaten national security are punished promptly and fairly. This is not a violation of rights; it is the defense of a country’s most fundamental right: security.
Repealing Article 63-A: Ending Authoritarianism in Democracy
The 26th Amendment also targets the democratic process by proposing the deletion of Article 63-A, which currently permits political parties to exclude members who vote against the party line. This is a prime example of dictatorship masquerading as democracy. In a true democracy, members of Parliament should be free to vote according to their conscience and the wishes of their constituents, rather than the demands of party leadership. Disqualifying members who resist party commands violates democratic principles. By eliminating this norm, the 26th Amendment reinstates the core concepts of representation and accountability, fostering criticism and discussion within the political process, which ultimately strengthens democracy.
A Path Forward: The Importance of Public Support
A broad and sustained effort is required to ensure the adoption of the 26th Amendment. Social media tools must be leveraged to engage the public and raise awareness about the amendment’s significance. Roundtable discussions, radio programs, and street protests will galvanize public opinion, particularly among those who have been victims of delayed justice. The intelligentsia, civil society, and religious scholars—especially those from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Lahore—should emphasize the importance of swift justice in light of religious teachings.
Victims of injustice must be given a platform to share their stories, highlighting the social and economic hardships they have faced due to a dysfunctional legal system. Their testimonies will serve as a poignant reminder of the need for reform.
Conclusion: A Necessary Reform for Pakistan’s Future
The 26th Amendment is more than just a legal change; it is a popular mandate. It addresses Pakistan’s judicial inefficiencies, refocuses the Supreme Court on justice, and defends democratic norms. Establishing a Federal Constitutional Court disrupts the connection between crime and the judiciary and ensures prompt justice for those who have long been denied it. This Amendment is not an attack on the court but rather a much-needed reform to guarantee that justice—the foundation of every democracy—is administered efficiently and effectively. The 26th Amendment must be passed for Pakistan’s bright future
Leave a Reply