Islamabad:
While the federal government has not yet formally moved on with the 27th constitutional amendment, mumbling of dissatisfaction and debate has already taken root within the legal fraternity, as the Supreme Court resumes hearings on petitions that challenge the 12th of July order in the reserved seats cases.
Tensions escalated further when Islamabad High Bar Association (IHCBA) President Wajid Gilani came out to support the proposed amendment and paid tribute to it as an opportunity for much needed “structural reforms” in the overall court.
However, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) fired back, condemned Gilani’s position, warning that lawyers from Sindh would “strongly resist any attempt to reintroduce martial arts and impose this judicial unit scheme in the Federation of Pakistan”.
‘Post-Constitutional Order’
Road on, the former additional lawyer Tariq Mahmood Khokhar pointed out that the original draft of the 26th amendment had already been markedly revised under hardness.
“In light of the opposition, against the established order, many of its amendment clauses had to fall from the final draft. But they were not abandoned as a lost case,” Khokhar said.
He argued that the current political climate is “appropriate” to reintroduce the previously omitted provisions through the 27th amendment.
“Victory on the battlefield can be seductive. The opposition is almost always a frightening task in Pakistan. More now than ever before. Even otherwise controlled institutions lack public legitimacy, unrepresented legislators and leaders, mainstream media and the legal fraternities fighting for cooperation.”
Khokhar warned that these sleeping clauses could now return with ease and claim that the 26th change had already propelled Pakistan to a “post -constitutional order”.
“The proposed 27th amendment will ‘formally’ replace the already diminished rule of law with the rule of law (law as a control instrument). Expect reintroduction of military courts, a federal constitutional court, renewed legal commission, redefined provincial powers, diminished the judiciary, he said.
“The supreme tragic irony is that the intended victims with rare honorable exceptions are willing accomplishment in and apologizing for offenses against the Constitution and Democracy,” Khokhar warned.
Meanwhile, Lawyers have begun to Question Why The Committee of Constitutional Benches, Led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and Comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Has Not Yet Fixed Hearing on Petitions Against The 26th Constitutional Amendment, as it Moves Swift on SEATS CASE – A MATTER DEEMED CRUCIAL FOR ENABLING THE RULING COALITION TO SECURE TWO -PROVIDE PLAND IN PREPARATION.
Observers note that the constitutional bench seems eager to end the case on the case for reserved seats without delay. However, questions are raised as to whether such rapid risks undermine legal independence, a prominent feature of the Constitution.
In addition, the formation of the constitutional bench itself is under control. A section of the legal community claims that those who benefit from the 26th amendment are hesitant to judge its legal challenges.
In 2015, a majority of SC judges in the milestone 21 had determined the change of constitutional matter that the parliamentary form of government was a prominent feature of the constitution and could not be changed through constitutional amendment.
Justice (Retd) Sheikh Azmat Saeed Author of the Judgment, which was approved by eight judges.
According to the verdict, the constitution contains a scheme that reflects its prominent feature.
“In an attempt to detect such prominent features, material outside the constitution cannot be invoked safely. The prominent features can be ascertained from the Constitution, including democracy, the parliamentary form of government and the judiciary of the judiciary,” it states.
It further stated that Parliament’s power to change the Constitution was subject to implied restrictions. According to Articles 238 and 239, Parliament may change the Constitution, provided that the prominent features are not abolished, abolished or changed significantly.
The verdict also confirmed that the point of point is entitled to jurisdiction to interpret the constitution and to determine if any constitutional amendment violates its defining feature.
While the majority’s judgment remains in force, legal circles claim that there was still an urgent need for the supreme court to investigate the validity of the 26th constitutional amendment.
They warn that further delay in the verdict may open the door to further constitutional changes, which potentially threaten the basic principles of the constitution.
Meanwhile, Karachi expressed association in his heavily formulated statement dismay over IHCBA president Gilani’s public approval of a change “yet unknown to the nation as a whole”.
“The lawyers and people of Pakistan expect attorneys’ associations and bar councils to be independent votes. They must not act as proxies on behalf of the government and be used to throw emotions on behalf of the government and declare support and rubber-stamp constitutional changes that do not even see the light of day.”
KBA claimed that making such statements, while the legal community continues to fight with the consequences of the 26th amendment which has not only been rejected by the legal community as a whole, but also under Judice, was “completely unjustified.”
“If there is actually such a change in the anvil, and the government has proven to be suitable for secretly sharing its content with the IHCBA president; he should share the same with his actual voters – which is the legal community.”
“The news is also being spread that such amendment will include a request of fresh oath for Superior Court Judges. This is a Transparent Attempt to Intimidate the Few Judges Left Who Are Yet To Surrender Their Conscience At The Feet of the Government. It is Identical to the PCO OATHS Invented by General Zia and General Musharraf For This Very Purpose and Any Civilian and Legal/Judicial Collaborator in This Martial-Law Exercise Shall Surely Be Remembered In The Same Terms As Sharifuddin Pirzada and Abdul Hameed Dogar, “it also reads.
“In any case, the learned IHCBA president has, to the extent, announced support for constitutional amendments that would give High Court and Lower Court judges from Islamabad transferred and published in the various provinces (with or without their consent); Karachi Bar Association considers this not only an attack on judicial independence, but an attack on federalism and autonomy and autonomy.”
“Let there be no doubt that the lawyers in Sindh are strongly rejecting and resisting any attempt any attempt to reintroduce fighting law and impose on this legal scheme on the Federation of Pakistan,” the association warned.
