The passage of any constitutional amendment in any country is a controversial issue but even more in a country like Pakistan where the omnipotent military establishment has often sought to ensure things go its way. At a recent conference, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) brought together people from civil society, the legal community and political parties to discuss the proposed amendments.
Lawyer Hina Jilani “put forward the following demands on behalf of civil society: an official draft of the bill must be made public and circulated and consensus built accordingly; no amendment must be allowed that cedes more authority to institutions not defined in Article 7 of the Constitution or that enables them to avoid accountability; civil society will not tolerate any change in the Constitution that infringes on Article 8; and any constitutional amendment must involve a wider range of political stakeholders over and above Parliament alone.”
Terming the process an ‘ambush’, National Democratic Movement leader Afrasiab Khattak noted “that an authentic draft of the bill was necessary.”
Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar “pointed out that hasty legislation contravened parliamentary norms,” while lawyer Danish Afridi “felt that the timing of the amendment was questionable.” Abid Saqi, former vice-chair of the Pakistan Bar Council, “questioned the authorship of the bill, calling for greater transparency.”
Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmad “felt there was no practical way of dividing constitutional jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and a constitutional court.” PTI secretary-general Salman Akram Raja said, “that any amendment that allowed the government to ‘handpick’ constitutional court judges would hamper the independence of the judiciary.”
Although supporting the notion of a constitutional court, PPP leaders Nayyar Bukhari and Farhatullah Babar “agreed that greater legislative transparency was critical.” PML-N leader Aqeel Malik argued “that the government had complied with the legislative process laid down in the National Assembly rules. He held that the bill would not infringe on Articles 8 or 199(4).”
