Two Pakistan Supreme Court Judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Ather Minallah, put in their resignations hours after the controversial 27th constitutional amendment was enacted as law following President Asif Ali Zaradari's assent on Thursday (13 Nov). The bill was passed by the Senate, the upper house of parliament, on 10 November, and it was passed in the National Assembly on 13 November amid demonstrations of opposition members and civil society groups.&nbsp;The provision under the new law calls for the establishment of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which would surpass the Pakistan Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial authority. It would handle all constitutional, military, and national security–related cases, taking away the Supreme Court’s power to review or challenge decisions linked to the armed forces or national defence.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/military-rule-2-0-pakistan-enacts-27th-amendment-army-chief-gains-lifelong-immunity-and-expanded-powers-shahbaz-sharif-nawaz-sharif-asim-munir-1762955753702">Military rule 2.0: Pakistan enacts 27th Amendment; Army chief gains lifelong immunity and expanded powers</a>&nbsp;Both the Judges called on Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi in separate letters to convene a full court summit and judicial conference to debate the 27th Constitutional Amendment.&nbsp;Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, in his letter to the president on Thursday (Nov 13), described the amendment as “a grave assault on the Constitution of Pakistan”, which “dismantles the Supreme Court of Pakistan, subjugates the judiciary to executive control, and strikes at the very heart of our constitutional democracy”.&nbsp;“By fracturing the unity of the nation’s apex court, it has crippled judicial independence and integrity, pushing the country back by decades,” he wrote.&nbsp;“As history bears witness, such a disfigurement of the constitutional order is unsustainable and will, in time, be reversed - but not before leaving deep institutional scars,” he declared.&nbsp;Explaining his decision, the judge stated that he had a choice between serving as an SC justice, which he said “undermines the very foundation of the institution one has sworn to protect”, or hand in his resignation.&nbsp;Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-afghan-citizens-behind-islamabad-suicide-blast-says-pak-minister-mohsin-naqvi-1763035881164"> 'Afghan citizens' behind Islamabad suicide blast, says Pak minister Mohsin Naqvi</a>&nbsp;In the same vein, Justice Ather Minallah stated in his letter that when he took the oath of office 11 years ago, he swore to uphold not “a constitution” but “the Constitution”.&nbsp;Expressing regret, Justice Minallah said that the Constitution he swore to uphold was “no more”, adding that he “can think of no greater assault on its memory than to pretend that, as new foundations are now laid, they rest upon anything other than its grave”.&nbsp;“What is left of it is a mere shadow; one that breathes neither its spirit, nor speaks the words of the people to whom it belongs,” Ather wrote in his letter.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Two Pakistani Supreme Court Judges handed over thier resignation after the controversial 27th Amendment, which undermines SC as highest judicial authority, enacted into a law after President Zardari's assent. 

Two Pakistan Supreme Court Judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Ather Minallah, put in their resignations hours after the controversial 27th constitutional amendment was enacted as law following President Asif Ali Zaradari's assent on Thursday (13 Nov). The bill was passed by the Senate, the upper house of parliament, on 10 November, and it was passed in the National Assembly on 13 November amid demonstrations of opposition members and civil society groups. The provision under the new law calls for the establishment of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which would surpass the Pakistan Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial authority. It would handle all constitutional, military, and national security–related cases, taking away the Supreme Court’s power to review or challenge decisions linked to the armed forces or national defence. Also Read: Military rule 2.0: Pakistan enacts 27th Amendment; Army chief gains lifelong immunity and expanded powers Both the Judges called on Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi in separate letters to convene a full court summit and judicial conference to debate the 27th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, in his letter to the president on Thursday (Nov 13), described the amendment as “a grave assault on the Constitution of Pakistan”, which “dismantles the Supreme Court of Pakistan, subjugates the judiciary to executive control, and strikes at the very heart of our constitutional democracy”. “By fracturing the unity of the nation’s apex court, it has crippled judicial independence and integrity, pushing the country back by decades,” he wrote. “As history bears witness, such a disfigurement of the constitutional order is unsustainable and will, in time, be reversed - but not before leaving deep institutional scars,” he declared. Explaining his decision, the judge stated that he had a choice between serving as an SC justice, which he said “undermines the very foundation of the institution one has sworn to protect”, or hand in his resignation. Also Read: 'Afghan citizens' behind Islamabad suicide blast, says Pak minister Mohsin Naqvi In the same vein, Justice Ather Minallah stated in his letter that when he took the oath of office 11 years ago, he swore to uphold not “a constitution” but “the Constitution”. Expressing regret, Justice Minallah said that the Constitution he swore to uphold was “no more”, adding that he “can think of no greater assault on its memory than to pretend that, as new foundations are now laid, they rest upon anything other than its grave”. “What is left of it is a mere shadow; one that breathes neither its spirit, nor speaks the words of the people to whom it belongs,” Ather wrote in his letter.

Two Pakistani Supreme Court Judges handed over thier resignation after the controversial 27th Amendment, which undermines SC as highest judicial authority, enacted into a law after President Zardari's assent.&nbsp;

'A grave assault on Constitution': Two Pakistan Supreme Court judges resign after 27th Amendment enacted as Law

Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked outrage among politicians, civil society and provinces. If passed, the amendment would centralise power under the military, create lifetime Field Marshals, curb the judiciary and reshape nuclear command and provincial control. 

Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked outrage among politicians, civil society and provinces. If passed, the amendment would centralise power under the military, create lifetime Field Marshals, curb the judiciary and reshape nuclear command and provincial control.&nbsp;

Coup without a coup? 10 things to know about Pakistan’s DANGEROUS constitution reform: Nukes, Field Marshal 'rule', immunity, two chief Justices...

Shortly after the federal cabinet granted its approval, Pakistan's law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar tabled the bill for the 27th Constitutional Amendment before the Senate on Saturday and it was subsequently referred to the standing committees on law and justice. A joint session of both the National Assembly and Senate standing committees on law and justice was then summoned for 2 pm to discuss the amendment. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had chaired the cabinet meeting via video link from Azerbaijan, reported state-run PTV News. “The federal cabinet approved the draft for the 27th Constitutional Amendment and welcomed it to the fullest extent,” it had added. Shehbaz noted that he had taken PML-N President Nawaz Sharif into confidence for the amendments and sought his guidance on them.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-lessons-in-brief-conflict-with-india-pak-plans-a-unified-defence-command-may-vest-more-powers-in-asim-munir-1762604562154">After ‘lessons’ in brief conflict with India, Pak plans a unified defence command, may vest more powers in Asim Munir</a>&nbsp;However, two Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam–Fazl (JUI-F) members, Aliya Kamran and Senator Kamran Murtaza, boycotted the meeting of the standing committees, saying the proposed draft includes the amendments that were discarded in the 26th Amendment bill.After deliberations on the proposed amendment, the law committees of both Houses were adjourned till Sunday.The bill proposes the formation of a Federal Constitutional Court, changes in the process for appointing high court judges, changes to the threshold for provincial cabinets, and changes to the military leadership structure.&nbsp;<h2>‘Discussions will continue till consensus is reached’</h2>&nbsp;Pakistan’s Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told media after the adjournment of the committees that all parties were participating in the session and they had also “requested the opposition to participate”. Tarar said the “long-awaited” proposed amendment has been in discussion for the last 10-15 years.&nbsp;“Pakistan is going through very tough circumstances, and I think the country’s greatest need today is political consensus and political stability,” the law minister stressed.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-afghan-peace-talks-collapsed-says-khawaja-asif-no-surety-on-truce-1762546640330">Pakistan-Afghan peace talks have collapsed, says Khawaja Asif; no surety on truce</a>&nbsp;“At the time of the 18th Amendment, it was on the constitutional agenda, and even earlier, during the 26th Amendment, but due to certain reasons, one of which was Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s suggestion that such a major change should not be made and that it would be better to move towards transition and form constitutional benches,” said Tarar.&nbsp;“All members have reviewed it (proposed constitutional amendment) and we have completed arguments on around 60 per cent of the clauses,” he claimed, while adding that a few questions have been raised by some members, which are legal in nature and “not fundamental” &nbsp;issues.&nbsp;Talking about Article 243, which provides that the federal government “shall have control and command of the armed forces”, the law minister said that certain clauses were being introduced. He said that Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir had been awarded the title of field marshal. “This is a title, not a rank, not an appointment as such … whereas army chief is an appointment with a five-year tenure,” he said. “Field marshal, or marshal of the air force, admiral of the fleet—these exist in different countries for land, navy, and air force. These titles are for a lifetime,” he said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Govt and its allies in a hurry to pass the bill’</h2>&nbsp;During the Senate session, PTI’s Ali Zafar said that debating the constitutional amendment was not appropriate when the leader of the opposition’s seat is vacant. He said the government and its allied parties appeared to be in a hurry to pass the bill.“I would suggest that instead of sending it to the committee, let this Senate be treated as a committee as a whole,” he said, suggesting the bill be debated by all individuals. He further said that the opposition had just received the draft and not yet read a word of it.&nbsp;“We cannot debate something we have not read,” he said.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tehran-faces-acute-water-scarcity-and-energy-crisis-mulls-rationing-evacuation-1762539231339">Tehran faces acute water scarcity and energy crisis; mulls rationing, evacuation</a>&nbsp;The proposed constitutional tweaks have been heavily criticised by lawyers and politicians, who termed them an attempt to revoke provincial rights granted in the 18th Amendment.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had chaired the cabinet meeting via video link from Azerbaijan. The cabinet approved the draft for the 27th Constitutional Amendment. Shehbaz said he had taken PML-N President Nawaz Sharif into confidence for the amendments and sought his guidance on them.

Shortly after the federal cabinet granted its approval, Pakistan's law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar tabled the bill for the 27th Constitutional Amendment before the Senate on Saturday and it was subsequently referred to the standing committees on law and justice. A joint session of both the National Assembly and Senate standing committees on law and justice was then summoned for 2 pm to discuss the amendment. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had chaired the cabinet meeting via video link from Azerbaijan, reported state-run PTV News. “The federal cabinet approved the draft for the 27th Constitutional Amendment and welcomed it to the fullest extent,” it had added. Shehbaz noted that he had taken PML-N President Nawaz Sharif into confidence for the amendments and sought his guidance on them. Also Read: After ‘lessons’ in brief conflict with India, Pak plans a unified defence command, may vest more powers in Asim Munir However, two Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam–Fazl (JUI-F) members, Aliya Kamran and Senator Kamran Murtaza, boycotted the meeting of the standing committees, saying the proposed draft includes the amendments that were discarded in the 26th Amendment bill. After deliberations on the proposed amendment, the law committees of both Houses were adjourned till Sunday. The bill proposes the formation of a Federal Constitutional Court, changes in the process for appointing high court judges, changes to the threshold for provincial cabinets, and changes to the military leadership structure. ‘Discussions will continue till consensus is reached’ Pakistan’s Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told media after the adjournment of the committees that all parties were participating in the session and they had also “requested the opposition to participate”. Tarar said the “long-awaited” proposed amendment has been in discussion for the last 10-15 years. “Pakistan is going through very tough circumstances, and I think the country’s greatest need today is political consensus and political stability,” the law minister stressed. Also Read: Pakistan-Afghan peace talks have collapsed, says Khawaja Asif; no surety on truce “At the time of the 18th Amendment, it was on the constitutional agenda, and even earlier, during the 26th Amendment, but due to certain reasons, one of which was Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s suggestion that such a major change should not be made and that it would be better to move towards transition and form constitutional benches,” said Tarar. “All members have reviewed it (proposed constitutional amendment) and we have completed arguments on around 60 per cent of the clauses,” he claimed, while adding that a few questions have been raised by some members, which are legal in nature and “not fundamental” issues. Talking about Article 243, which provides that the federal government “shall have control and command of the armed forces”, the law minister said that certain clauses were being introduced. He said that Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir had been awarded the title of field marshal. “This is a title, not a rank, not an appointment as such … whereas army chief is an appointment with a five-year tenure,” he said. “Field marshal, or marshal of the air force, admiral of the fleet—these exist in different countries for land, navy, and air force. These titles are for a lifetime,” he said. ‘Govt and its allies in a hurry to pass the bill’ During the Senate session, PTI’s Ali Zafar said that debating the constitutional amendment was not appropriate when the leader of the opposition’s seat is vacant. He said the government and its allied parties appeared to be in a hurry to pass the bill. “I would suggest that instead of sending it to the committee, let this Senate be treated as a committee as a whole,” he said, suggesting the bill be debated by all individuals. He further said that the opposition had just received the draft and not yet read a word of it. “We cannot debate something we have not read,” he said. Also Read: Tehran faces acute water scarcity and energy crisis; mulls rationing, evacuation The proposed constitutional tweaks have been heavily criticised by lawyers and politicians, who termed them an attempt to revoke provincial rights granted in the 18th Amendment.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had chaired the cabinet meeting via video link from Azerbaijan. The cabinet approved the draft for the 27th Constitutional Amendment. Shehbaz said he had taken PML-N President Nawaz Sharif into confidence for the amendments and sought his guidance on them.

Pak law minister tables 27th Constitutional Amendment bill proposing more powers to military

Pakistan is on the cusp of a potentially dangerous constitutional shift that could entrench military dominance and elevate Gen Asim Munir to unprecedented powers. At the heart of these concerns is the debate over the 27th Amendment to the 1973 Constitution, causing alarm among opposition political parties, legal experts and civil society. Civilian control over the military has always been largely symbolic in Pakistan, but it could be entirely sacrificed if the so-called 'Munir Amendment' passes, strengthening the hands of Munir, who currently holds the rare rank of Field Marshal.<h2>A collusion of government and military that suits Munir</h2>The current Pakistani coalition government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) as president, is seen by observers as Munir’s best opportunity to implement the reforms. The coalition came to power with the backing of the military establishment, providing Munir a conducive environment to push constitutional changes.The full text of the amendment has not yet been made public, but reports indicate that three major areas are being addressed: the military command structure, particularly Article 243; federal-provincial relations; and the mandate of the judiciary. The ruling coalition has sought support from the PPP for provisions including establishing constitutional courts, revising the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, and amending Article 243 concerning armed forces command. While there is some opposition within PPP regarding financial allocations under the NFC award, the party is generally supportive of expanding military powers.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pak-army-chief-asim-munir-to-get-extended-rule-bilawal-bhutto-hints-at-revising-article-243-the-command-structure-of-its-armed-forces-1762170923801">Pak army chief Asim Munir to get extended rule? Bilawal Bhutto hints at revising Article 243, the command structure of its armed forces</a><h2>The rise of Munir: from army chief to Field Marshal</h2>Munir’s promotion to Field Marshal in May 2025 came in the wake of heightened India-Pakistan tensions following Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahelgam terror attack. This is only the second time in Pakistan’s history that someone has been appointed Field Marshal; the first was Ayub Khan in 1959.Already, Munir’s term as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) has been extended to November 2027 following a 2024 constitutional amendment that expanded army chiefs’ tenure from three to five years.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed</a><h2>Why critics worry about the new constitutional amendment</h2>The amendment could institutionalise military influence, giving Munir significant authority over military appointments, intelligence operations, and national security decisions, including potential war-making powers.Supporters argue that redefining the military’s role will provide stability in Pakistan’s long-term governance, by codifying the military’s contributions to national security.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/imran-khan-attacks-asim-munir-political-crisis-pakistan-1762415636398">Imran Khan calls Asim Munir ‘mentally unstable dictator,’ accuses him of tyranny and cruelty</a><h2>Opposition is handicapped</h2>Imran Khan, the former prime minister, and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have strongly opposed the move, calling it an assault on civilian supremacy and judicial independence, which could lead to de facto lifetime military rule. PTI lawmakers have vowed to block the bill and staged boycotts of previous constitutional votes.Some Islamist parties, such as JUI-F, and ethnic nationalist groups from Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are also opposed, arguing that the amendments undermine federalism and threaten provincial autonomy.<h2>A de facto martial law in Pakistan</h2>Legal experts warn that the amendment could create a “neo-martial law” environment, undermining judicial independence and democracy. If passed, Pakistan’s already entrenched reliance on the military in politics could become formalised. Civilian leadership could be sidelined, and decision-making transparency reduced.<h2>Will the amendment pass?</h2>There is an estimated 70–80 per cent chance of passage. A two-thirds majority in both houses is required for a constitutional amendment, and the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, holds nearly enough seats to meet this threshold. Observers also note that some lawmakers from smaller parties could be coerced or persuaded to vote for the amendment when it is tabled.<h2>What the future holds for Pakistan: Another period of turbulence?</h2>If the amendment passes without broad national and political consensus, it could deepen political polarisation, with opponents taking to the streets. Provincial regions could see violence and heavy-handed suppression of protests.If enacted, the 27th Amendment could mark a watershed moment in Pakistan’s civil-military balance. Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? The coming weeks will be critical. &nbsp;

This picture says it all: Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? In all likelihood, they will 

Pakistan is on the cusp of a potentially dangerous constitutional shift that could entrench military dominance and elevate Gen Asim Munir to unprecedented powers. At the heart of these concerns is the debate over the 27th Amendment to the 1973 Constitution, causing alarm among opposition political parties, legal experts and civil society. Civilian control over the military has always been largely symbolic in Pakistan, but it could be entirely sacrificed if the so-called 'Munir Amendment' passes, strengthening the hands of Munir, who currently holds the rare rank of Field Marshal. A collusion of government and military that suits Munir The current Pakistani coalition government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) as president, is seen by observers as Munir’s best opportunity to implement the reforms. The coalition came to power with the backing of the military establishment, providing Munir a conducive environment to push constitutional changes. The full text of the amendment has not yet been made public, but reports indicate that three major areas are being addressed: the military command structure, particularly Article 243; federal-provincial relations; and the mandate of the judiciary. The ruling coalition has sought support from the PPP for provisions including establishing constitutional courts, revising the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, and amending Article 243 concerning armed forces command. While there is some opposition within PPP regarding financial allocations under the NFC award, the party is generally supportive of expanding military powers. Also read: Pak army chief Asim Munir to get extended rule? Bilawal Bhutto hints at revising Article 243, the command structure of its armed forces The rise of Munir: from army chief to Field Marshal Munir’s promotion to Field Marshal in May 2025 came in the wake of heightened India-Pakistan tensions following Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahelgam terror attack. This is only the second time in Pakistan’s history that someone has been appointed Field Marshal; the first was Ayub Khan in 1959. Already, Munir’s term as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) has been extended to November 2027 following a 2024 constitutional amendment that expanded army chiefs’ tenure from three to five years. https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed Why critics worry about the new constitutional amendment The amendment could institutionalise military influence, giving Munir significant authority over military appointments, intelligence operations, and national security decisions, including potential war-making powers. Supporters argue that redefining the military’s role will provide stability in Pakistan’s long-term governance, by codifying the military’s contributions to national security. Also read: Imran Khan calls Asim Munir ‘mentally unstable dictator,’ accuses him of tyranny and cruelty Opposition is handicapped Imran Khan, the former prime minister, and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have strongly opposed the move, calling it an assault on civilian supremacy and judicial independence, which could lead to de facto lifetime military rule. PTI lawmakers have vowed to block the bill and staged boycotts of previous constitutional votes. Some Islamist parties, such as JUI-F, and ethnic nationalist groups from Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are also opposed, arguing that the amendments undermine federalism and threaten provincial autonomy. A de facto martial law in Pakistan Legal experts warn that the amendment could create a “neo-martial law” environment, undermining judicial independence and democracy. If passed, Pakistan’s already entrenched reliance on the military in politics could become formalised. Civilian leadership could be sidelined, and decision-making transparency reduced. Will the amendment pass? There is an estimated 70–80 per cent chance of passage. A two-thirds majority in both houses is required for a constitutional amendment, and the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, holds nearly enough seats to meet this threshold. Observers also note that some lawmakers from smaller parties could be coerced or persuaded to vote for the amendment when it is tabled. What the future holds for Pakistan: Another period of turbulence? If the amendment passes without broad national and political consensus, it could deepen political polarisation, with opponents taking to the streets. Provincial regions could see violence and heavy-handed suppression of protests. If enacted, the 27th Amendment could mark a watershed moment in Pakistan’s civil-military balance. Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? The coming weeks will be critical.

This picture says it all: Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? In all likelihood, they will&nbsp;

Will Field Marshal Asim Munir rule Pakistan? Nation is dangerously close to giving the military unfettered powers

Nawaz Sharif's party has called the Supreme Court verdict against the former Pakistan Prime Minister a "joke". The Pakistan Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, disqualified Sharif from holding office for life while hearing a case related to determination of time duration for disqualification of a lawmaker under the Constitution. Sharif, facing corruption charges, was disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution.

"This is the same decision that led to the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto," PML-N leader and State Minister for Information Maryam Aurangzeb said.

"This joke has already been played on previous premiers and all 17 prime ministers of Pakistan have faced a similar fate," she added.

Article 62(1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution specifies that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) "unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law".

Friday's ruling addressed an ambiguity over Sharif's disqualification and whether he was barred from office for life or a specific period.

"None of the learned counsels, who appeared before us, confronted the elephant in the room i.e. the obvious interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is that lack of the qualification to a Member is the effect of declaration by a Court of Law, which is the cause and period of lack of qualification would be co-extensive with the period to the cause i.e. declaration," the Pakistan Supreme Court said in its judgement.

"...this Court on more than one occasions has already held that lack of qualification suffered under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is in perpetuity," the Supreme Court said.

Article 62 is the same provision under which Sharif, 68, was disqualified in July last year in the Panama Papers case. He resigned as prime minister in July last after his disqualification.

Three cases were registered against Sharif, his children and son-in-law in the court on September 8. His family, however, alleges that the cases are politically motivated.

Friday's ruling addressed an ambiguity over Sharif's disqualification and whether he was barred from office for life or a specific period.

Nawaz Sharif's party has called the Supreme Court verdict against the former Pakistan Prime Minister a "joke". The Pakistan Supreme Court, in a landmark judgement, disqualified Sharif from holding office for life while hearing a case related to determination of time duration for disqualification of a lawmaker under the Constitution. Sharif, facing corruption charges, was disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution. "This is the same decision that led to the hanging of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto," PML-N leader and State Minister for Information Maryam Aurangzeb said. "This joke has already been played on previous premiers and all 17 prime ministers of Pakistan have faced a similar fate," she added. Article 62(1)(f) of Pakistan's Constitution specifies that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) "unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law". Friday's ruling addressed an ambiguity over Sharif's disqualification and whether he was barred from office for life or a specific period. "None of the learned counsels, who appeared before us, confronted the elephant in the room i.e. the obvious interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is that lack of the qualification to a Member is the effect of declaration by a Court of Law, which is the cause and period of lack of qualification would be co-extensive with the period to the cause i.e. declaration," the Pakistan Supreme Court said in its judgement. "...this Court on more than one occasions has already held that lack of qualification suffered under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is in perpetuity," the Supreme Court said. Article 62 is the same provision under which Sharif, 68, was disqualified in July last year in the Panama Papers case. He resigned as prime minister in July last after his disqualification. Three cases were registered against Sharif, his children and son-in-law in the court on September 8. His family, however, alleges that the cases are politically motivated.

Pak Supreme Court verdict disqualifying Nawaz Sharif a joke, says his party

By Adnan Rasool*

Pakistanis head to the polls to elect their next prime minister in July. Until then, though, the Supreme Court seems to be in charge of the country.

In July 2017, revelations from the Panama Papers leak spurred Pakistan’s high court to rule that then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had lied to the public about his family finances. Sharif, who maintained his innocence, was forced to resign as prime minister.

However, he continued to lead his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, or PML-N, effectively controlling Pakistan’s government. Then, in February 2018, the Supreme Court also removed him as party chairman.

Because Sharif was not “honest” or “righteous,” Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar additionally ruled, all “orders passed, directions given and documents issued” under his leadership were officially declared null.

Sharif and his supporters accuse Pakistan’s chief justice of interfering in politics and swaying the upcoming election. As a Pakistani political scientist, I fear they may be right.

Judicial overreach

Military coups used to be the biggest risk to Pakistani democracy. Thanks to coup d'etats in 1958, 1977 and 1999, my country has spent 33 years of its 71-year history under military rule.

To a people rightfully fearful of interference in their political system, then, the Supreme Court’s recent actions are alarming. By discrediting some politicians while seemingly overlooking corrupt public officials from other parties, the judiciary is effectively influencing the outcome of July’s election.

How do a nation’s top judges - people sworn to defend the Constitution - become a threat to democracy? That’s the focus of my research on judicial independence in Pakistan.

In Pakistan, as in other former British colonies, the Supreme Court has the power to take what’s called “suo motu” action. That means judges can rule on issues of their own volition, without any motion or complaint filed in court.

For instance, Chief Justice Nisar recently ordered a hearing on the rape and murder of a young child in Lahore, because closing that case quickly was deemed to be in the public interest.

As it happens, in recent years he has also removed the prime minister from public office twice, conducted surprise inspections at government hospitals, lambasted the media for commenting on open cases and ordered investigations into police violence.

Such sweeping authority creates a clash of institutions between the judiciary and other branches of government. Such competition can be detrimental to democracy. My research in several countries has found that when supreme court justices venture into political affairs, they create conflict with lawmakers and heads of state.

It is unsurprising, then, that Chief Justice Nisar’s suo motu cases over the past few months have outraged many Pakistani politicians, who say the justice is guilty of judicial overreach.

Nisar responds that he is simply following the law, adding that the “courts are not the enemies of the government.”

Sharif takes his case to the ‘people’s court’

But to some, Nisar’s timing – the lead-up to a big national election – is suspicious. So, too, is his selection of suo motu hearings: The overwhelming majority of political cases added to the Supreme Court’s docket since 2015 have focused on Sharif’s party.

The toppled prime minister, for his part, claims that he is the victim of a “judicial coup.” At rallies across Pakistan, Sharif tells his supporters that since he cannot run for re-election this fall, he must ask them, the “people’s court,” to vote for his PML-N party.

The Supreme Court has already removed one PML-N senator, and two of its ministers are under investigation for alleged contempt of court. Sharif and the PLM-N leadership cite these cases as evidence that the party is under judicial attack.

In targeting Sharif and his party, Justice Nisar has allowed the ousted prime minister to paint themselves as the underdogs, even though the party is still in power. This has strengthened the PML-N’s position ahead of the upcoming election. Currently, it is polling above its closest rivals by about eight points.

Sharif also remains the most popular leader in the country, according to recent surveys.

Chief justice or general?

Suggestions that the Pakistani military was behind Sharif’s 2017 ouster have bolstered the former prime minister’s claim of victimhood.

Credible analysts assert that the prime minister challenged Pakistan’s generals’ authority when he was in power by taking relatively noncombative approach to neighboring India and Afghanistan. Normally, the Pakistani military – whose power is so enduring that Pakistanis often call it simply the “establishment” – directs regional security.

Sharif also butted heads with Pakistan’s armed forces during his 1997-1999 administration, ultimately leading to his overthrow by the military in 1999.

Since coups are no longer acceptable in Pakistan, the logic goes, this time the generals used legal action to remove Sharif. 
Judicial overreach abroad

Pakistan is not the only place questioning the limits of judicial intervention in the democratic process.

Bangladeshi courts used their suo motu powers to prosecute and sideline a main opposition leader prior to elections in both 2008 and 2009.

In Brazil, Judge Sergio Moro faced accusations of staging a judicial coup in January when he convicted former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of corruption, likely disqualifying him from this year’s presidential election.

Brazilian courts don’t have suo motu power. But judges there have used the judicial discretion of their civil law system to dramatically expand the scope of a nationwide bribery inquiry. Upwards of 100 congressmen and senators are now under judicial investigation.

Judges in the United States, too, have the power expand the scope of a petition to the court. A classic example is the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United. Nominally, the nine justices were supposed to rule on what constituted political advertising. Instead, they issued a much broader verdict on free speech and corporate money in elections.

In those countries, as in Pakistan, judges contend they are simply doing their jobs, acting as a critical constitutional check on the political system.

But in a young democracy like Pakistan’s, the standoff between judges and the ruling party is fueling an unhealthy level of uncertainty during a campaign season. If the chief justice is not in fact staging a coup, I’m alarmed to say, it sure feels like he is.

*(Adnan Rasool is a PhD candidate/student innovation fellow, Georgia State University )

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the authors and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Sharif and his supporters accuse Pakistan’s chief justice of interfering in politics and swaying the upcoming election.

By Adnan Rasool* Pakistanis head to the polls to elect their next prime minister in July. Until then, though, the Supreme Court seems to be in charge of the country. In July 2017, revelations from the Panama Papers leak spurred Pakistan’s high court to rule that then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had lied to the public about his family finances. Sharif, who maintained his innocence, was forced to resign as prime minister. However, he continued to lead his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, or PML-N, effectively controlling Pakistan’s government. Then, in February 2018, the Supreme Court also removed him as party chairman. Because Sharif was not “honest” or “righteous,” Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar additionally ruled, all “orders passed, directions given and documents issued” under his leadership were officially declared null. Sharif and his supporters accuse Pakistan’s chief justice of interfering in politics and swaying the upcoming election. As a Pakistani political scientist, I fear they may be right. Judicial overreach Military coups used to be the biggest risk to Pakistani democracy. Thanks to coup d'etats in 1958, 1977 and 1999, my country has spent 33 years of its 71-year history under military rule. To a people rightfully fearful of interference in their political system, then, the Supreme Court’s recent actions are alarming. By discrediting some politicians while seemingly overlooking corrupt public officials from other parties, the judiciary is effectively influencing the outcome of July’s election. How do a nation’s top judges - people sworn to defend the Constitution - become a threat to democracy? That’s the focus of my research on judicial independence in Pakistan. In Pakistan, as in other former British colonies, the Supreme Court has the power to take what’s called “suo motu” action. That means judges can rule on issues of their own volition, without any motion or complaint filed in court. For instance, Chief Justice Nisar recently ordered a hearing on the rape and murder of a young child in Lahore, because closing that case quickly was deemed to be in the public interest. As it happens, in recent years he has also removed the prime minister from public office twice, conducted surprise inspections at government hospitals, lambasted the media for commenting on open cases and ordered investigations into police violence. Such sweeping authority creates a clash of institutions between the judiciary and other branches of government. Such competition can be detrimental to democracy. My research in several countries has found that when supreme court justices venture into political affairs, they create conflict with lawmakers and heads of state. It is unsurprising, then, that Chief Justice Nisar’s suo motu cases over the past few months have outraged many Pakistani politicians, who say the justice is guilty of judicial overreach. Nisar responds that he is simply following the law, adding that the “courts are not the enemies of the government.” Sharif takes his case to the ‘people’s court’ But to some, Nisar’s timing – the lead-up to a big national election – is suspicious. So, too, is his selection of suo motu hearings: The overwhelming majority of political cases added to the Supreme Court’s docket since 2015 have focused on Sharif’s party. The toppled prime minister, for his part, claims that he is the victim of a “judicial coup.” At rallies across Pakistan, Sharif tells his supporters that since he cannot run for re-election this fall, he must ask them, the “people’s court,” to vote for his PML-N party. The Supreme Court has already removed one PML-N senator, and two of its ministers are under investigation for alleged contempt of court. Sharif and the PLM-N leadership cite these cases as evidence that the party is under judicial attack. In targeting Sharif and his party, Justice Nisar has allowed the ousted prime minister to paint themselves as the underdogs, even though the party is still in power. This has strengthened the PML-N’s position ahead of the upcoming election. Currently, it is polling above its closest rivals by about eight points. Sharif also remains the most popular leader in the country, according to recent surveys. Chief justice or general? Suggestions that the Pakistani military was behind Sharif’s 2017 ouster have bolstered the former prime minister’s claim of victimhood. Credible analysts assert that the prime minister challenged Pakistan’s generals’ authority when he was in power by taking relatively noncombative approach to neighboring India and Afghanistan. Normally, the Pakistani military – whose power is so enduring that Pakistanis often call it simply the “establishment” – directs regional security. Sharif also butted heads with Pakistan’s armed forces during his 1997-1999 administration, ultimately leading to his overthrow by the military in 1999. Since coups are no longer acceptable in Pakistan, the logic goes, this time the generals used legal action to remove Sharif. Judicial overreach abroad Pakistan is not the only place questioning the limits of judicial intervention in the democratic process. Bangladeshi courts used their suo motu powers to prosecute and sideline a main opposition leader prior to elections in both 2008 and 2009. In Brazil, Judge Sergio Moro faced accusations of staging a judicial coup in January when he convicted former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of corruption, likely disqualifying him from this year’s presidential election. Brazilian courts don’t have suo motu power. But judges there have used the judicial discretion of their civil law system to dramatically expand the scope of a nationwide bribery inquiry. Upwards of 100 congressmen and senators are now under judicial investigation. Judges in the United States, too, have the power expand the scope of a petition to the court. A classic example is the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United. Nominally, the nine justices were supposed to rule on what constituted political advertising. Instead, they issued a much broader verdict on free speech and corporate money in elections. In those countries, as in Pakistan, judges contend they are simply doing their jobs, acting as a critical constitutional check on the political system. But in a young democracy like Pakistan’s, the standoff between judges and the ruling party is fueling an unhealthy level of uncertainty during a campaign season. If the chief justice is not in fact staging a coup, I’m alarmed to say, it sure feels like he is. *(Adnan Rasool is a PhD candidate/student innovation fellow, Georgia State University ) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the authors and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Pakistan's activist Supreme Court endangers a fragile democracy