The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on Thursday issued a statement assailing the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, calling it a \u201cflagrant attack\u201d on judicial independence and the rule of law.<\/p>\n
Last year, the ICJ similarly derided the 26th Constitutional Amendment being signed into law as a \u201cblow to judicial independence\u201d.<\/p>\n
ICJ Secretary-General Santiago Canton was quoted as saying: \u201cThe changes made to the judicial system in the 27th Amendment are alarming \u2026They will significantly impair the judiciary\u2019s ability to hold the executive accountable and protect the fundamental human rights of the people of Pakistan.\u201d<\/p>\n
The jurists\u2019 body expressed concern over several main points, namely the formation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), the appointment of judges and chief justices to the Supreme Court and the FCC, the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), the transfer of high court judges and the immunities granted to the president and the military leadership.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe FCC will have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes between any of Pakistan\u2019s governments, provincial and federal and to adjudicate matters of public interest involving the enforcement of \u2018fundamental rights\u2019,\u201d the statement read, adding that it can call for the record of any case and hear appeals if they deal with interpreting the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cBefore the amendment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercised the functions that have now been given to the FCC,\u201d the statement read. \u201cFollowing the amendment, the Supreme Court will now effectively be an appellate court only in matters that do not involve the interpretation of the Constitution of Pakistan.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ICJ further noted that the first batch of FCC judges would be appointed by the president on the prime minister\u2019s advice, with future judges being appointed on the recommendation of the JCP, while the chief justice would be appointed by a \u201cspecial parliamentary committee\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe amendment does not provide any criteria on which the appointments will be made and does not require reasons to [be] given for the appointments, apart from general qualifications necessary to be considered a judge of the FCC,\u201d the statement read.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe appointments are also of concern as the [chief justice] of the FCC and the senior-most judge of the FCC will also be members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan \u2026 and the Supreme Judicial Council,\u201d it highlighted.<\/p>\n
The ICJ noted that amendments to Article 200 (transfer of high court judges) allow the JCP to recommend that the president transfer a judge from one high court to another, with the judge in question forced to accept the transfer within 30 days, lest they be barred from judicial duties.<\/p>\n
\u201cArticle 200 fails to provide for any basis on which the JCP will decide when judges should be transferred and there is no requirement to establish a mechanism with clearly defined criteria and objectives to guide recommendations for transfer,\u201d the ICJ said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis arbitrary system makes it impossible to determine whether transfer might actually be intended to be punitive or retaliatory, rather than for the legitimate purpose of better administration of justice and public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n
With regards to lifetime immunity granted to the president, the field marshal, marshal of the air force and admiral of the fleet under Articles 243 and 248, the ICJ said the amendments are \u201ccontrary to core rule of law principles, including accountability, access to justice, and equality before the law\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo public official should ever be entirely unaccountable, as this effectively allows for the possibility of unlawful or arbitrary exercise of power without consequence,\u201d the statement read.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on Thursday issued a statement assailing the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, calling it a \u201cflagrant attack\u201d on judicial independence and the rule of law. Last year, the ICJ similarly derided the 26th Constitutional Amendment being signed into law as a \u201cblow to judicial independence\u201d. ICJ Secretary-General Santiago […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13395,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-court-and-crime"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13394"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13396,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13394\/revisions\/13396"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/13395"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}