Pakistan Passes 26th Constitutional Amendment New Chief Justice and Judicial Reforms
Dear readers! After weeks of effort and political maneuvering, Pakistan's upper house (Senate) and lower house (National Assembly) have finally approved the 26th Constitutional Amendment with a two-thirds majority. President Asif Ali Zardari has signed off on it.
In the Senate, 64 votes were needed for a two-thirds majority; the amendment passed with 65 votes in favor and 4 against. In the National Assembly, the required two-thirds majority was 224 votes; it passed with 225 votes in favor, while 12 members from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Sunni Ittehad Council voted against.
Before it was presented in the Senate, the draft of the 26th Amendment was approved in a key federal cabinet meeting, where Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar gave a detailed briefing. The cabinet, including the government’s allies like the Pakistan People’s Party, accepted the draft, after which the law minister introduced it for voting in the Senate.
The 65 votes in favor included 58 from the government, 2 from the Balochistan National Party (Mengal), and 5 from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F). Among those opposing it were PTI Senators Ali Zafar, Aun Abbas, and Hamid Khan, and Majlis Wahdat-ul-Muslimeen's parliamentary leader, Senator Raja Nasir Abbas, who did not vote.
Before presenting the amendment, the law minister acknowledged Bilawal Bhutto’s hard work in securing support for it, with agreement reached after consulting allies. He highlighted the importance of the amendment, which includes a new appointment process for the Chief Justice of Pakistan with a set three-year term, adds mechanisms for constitutional benches in provinces, and includes clauses related to the judicial commission, with a provision for a non-Muslim member. The minister added that JUI's proposal on interest-free (riba-free) policy was also included in the amendment, in line with a Supreme Court observation, with the interest-based system set to end by January 1, 2028.
Meanwhile, PTI Senator Ali Zafar opposed the amendment, calling the process "wrong" and claiming people were forced to vote out of fear, making it against the principles of democracy and the constitution. The law minister mentioned that this matter had been part of the Charter of Democracy signed by the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), initiated by Nawaz Sharif and the late Benazir Bhutto. Opposition had proposed “constitutional benches” instead of a “constitutional court” as discussed in the amendment, along with addressing matters like the Chief Justice’s appointment and suo motu powers.
On the other side, a special parliamentary committee nominated Justice Yahya Afridi as the next Chief Justice of Pakistan. This was the first significant test for the 26th Amendment, which requires the Chief Justice's name to be approved three days before the current Chief Justice retires.
The Supreme Court sent three names, and the committee of government and opposition members was to choose one. However, PTI decided to boycott the committee, so only government and its allies participated in the selection process, while the opposition continued their stance from the voting process.
The parliamentary committee unanimously agreed on Justice Yahya Afridi as the new Chief Justice. This was the first time a parliamentary committee selected a Chief Justice, which the government sees as proof of parliament’s supremacy. Had this decision been made with full parliamentary consensus, it would have further strengthened this claim.
Justice Yahya Afridi was ranked third in seniority among the three names sent by the Supreme Court, with Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah ranked higher. Nevertheless, with the new amendment, the Chief Justice's selection is no longer strictly based on seniority but on the parliamentary committee’s decision.
The committee's majority backing Justice Yahya Afridi makes him the rightful holder of this esteemed position. Whether the opposition’s participation would have changed the outcome remains uncertain, but it’s clear that the skills, insight, and integrity of all three nominated justices were unquestionable.
