Human rights group Amnesty International on Tuesday said the 27th Constitutional Amendment was the “crescendo of a concerted and sustained attack on the independence of the judiciary, right to fair trial and the rule of law in Pakistan”, calling for an urgent review of the legislation.

The 27th Amendment, passed by Parliament after five days of heated debate, opposition protests, and last-minute revisions, was widely criticised for abolishing judicial independence through the formation of a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) and introducing changes to the military leadership structure by rewriting Article 243 of the Constitution (command of the armed forces).

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the rights body said the Amendment was a “crescendo of a concerted and sustained attack on the independence of the judiciary, right to fair trial and the rule of law in Pakistan”.

It called on authorities to conduct an urgent review of the Amendment to “ensure that all its provisions fully comply with Pakistan’s international human rights law obligations and commitments”.

It added the Amendment “insulates the president and heads of the naval, armed and air forces from accountability”.

“The Pakistani authorities must immediately take all appropriate measures to safeguard the impartiality, independence and safety of judges, ensuring that they can carry out their judicial functions without any inappropriate or unwarranted interference and any restrictions, improper influences, pressures and threats, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason,” the rights body said.

It noted that the Amendment violated “international human rights law, particularly undermining the independence of the judiciary, right to fair trial and justice and accountability”.

It urged Pakistani authorities to “uphold their international human rights obligations, effectively protect the human rights of everyone in the country, and ensure access to justice and effective remedies for victims, as well as respect the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

Amnesty maintained that the 27th Amendment had ensured the establishment of the FCC, which “lacks independence, erodes judges’ security”.

It noted that despite the Amendment’s “far-reaching consequences”, it was passed through Parliament with “no consultation with civil society and opposition parties”.

It recalled that on the day the Amendment was signed into law, two senior judges of the Supreme Court — Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah — had resigned. It added that two days later, a Lahore High Court had also resigned, referring to ex-judge Shams Mehmood Mirza.

The rights body said the 27th Amendment “further erodes judicial independence,” which it maintained had been “already weakened” by the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which was passed in 2024. It noted that the 26th Amendment was “passed with similar haste, in less than 24 hours in October 2024”.

It added that the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) — the body responsible for the appointment of judges of the Supreme and high courts — was changed under the 26th Amendment. Members of Parliament were added to the commission and judicial members were reduced to a minority, the statement said, adding that the “change in composition to include the legislature of the JCP risks politicisation” of the appointment of judges.

Amnesty noted that the 26th Amendment transferred “the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction — the authority to hear cases at its own initiation — and advisory jurisdiction and authority to provide opinion on significant questions of law or public importance referred by the president — to the newly created Constitutional Benches”.

It said that the benches had “exclusive jurisdiction for cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution.”

“A little over a year after the Constitutional Benches were constituted, the twenty-seventh amendment abolished the bench at the Supreme Court level and replaced it with a separate court — the Federal Constitutional Court.”

Concerns about ‘attacks on judiciary’

Amnesty noted that the 26th and 27th Amendments were brought “amid larger concerns regarding attacks on the judiciary”.

It noted that “in the past two years, various judges have raised concerns over interference with the judiciary as well as threats to judges deciding key cases involving the ruling coalition and military.”

The group recalled an open letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) — Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz — in March 2024.

It said that the letter, which was addressed to the then-chief justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, spoke of “intimidation by the military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), abduction of family members of judges and surveillance in the judge’s private homes as tactics to pressurise them regarding ongoing cases, particularly those related to the former Prime Minister Imran Khan”.

Subsequent to the letter, Amnesty recalled, the case was then taken up by the SC that sought replies from the respective high courts, out of which the Peshawar High Court (PHC) responded that “interference in judicial matters by the executive was an ‘open secret’.”

In its reply, the PHC maintained that judges “faced threats from intelligence agencies while hearing ‘political’ cases. Judges are also subject to threats online and physically”.

The Amnesty statement also recalled an April 2024 incident, where various judges of the SC, as well as the high courts, received letters containing suspicious powder.

It added that in the same month, “an online campaign was launched maligning Justice Babar Sattar of the Islamabad High Court, one of the judges who had written the open letter.”

The rights body continued: “In March 2024, an anonymous complaint was filed against another author of the open letter, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, accusing him of ‘bias’ and ‘favouritism’.”

“It was subsequently not adjudicated upon by the SJC (Supreme Judicial Council).”

Amnesty recalled that another signatory to the letter — Justice Jahangiri — was removed over a case questioning the validity of his law degree in December 2025.

“Justice Jahangiri had raised concerns regarding his trial, arguing that it bypassed the procedure for removal of judges in the Constitution and that the bench hearing his case had [a] conflict of interest, as it included the [Islamabad High Court] Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar, against whom Justice Jahangiri had filed a case at the SC challenging his eligibility as chief justice.”

‘Hastily adopted’

Amnesty noted that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk had referred to the 27th Amendment as “hastily adopted” and said that the process of its passing lacked “broad consultation and debate with the legal community and wider civil society”.

It said that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) also raised alarm over the hasty passage of the Amendment.

The HRCP, in a statement, had said that the Amendment was passed in “the absence of any meaningful consultation with the political opposition, the wider legal fraternity and civil society”.

“Amnesty International notes that there was no consultation with civil society and the draft was made public only on November 8 when it was presented in the Senate, mere hours after approval from the federal cabinet.”

Detailing further parliamentary proceedings that led to the eventual passing of the Amendment, the rights group said that “at no point during this process were civil society and other stakeholders consulted or given an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft amendment”.

Amnesty also took note of the “contested” composition of the parliament at the time of the passage of the Amendment.

In its statement, Amnesty said, “This amendment was passed at a time when opposition leaders in both houses had been disqualified after their convictions by anti-terrorism courts for alleged involvement in protests following the arrest of Imran on May 9 2023.”

It also recalled the issue of PTI’s reserved seats in the National Assembly (NA).

The PTI was stripped of its election symbol right before the 2024 general elections, following which the party nominees were forced to contest the polls as independent candidates.

The 80 PTI-backed independents in the NA had then joined the Sunni Ittehad Council to be able to claim reserved seats.

Amnesty said that in July 2024, a 13-member bench of the Supreme Court also “ruled that the PTI was entitled to its share of reserved seats”.

Had the 2024 judgment been implemented, the PTI-Sunni Ittehad Council bloc would have been the single largest party with 114 seats in the National Assembly, the Amnesty statement said.

“The verdict, however, was challenged at the Constitutional Bench after the 26th Amendment was adopted, and the bench ruled in June 2025 that the party was ineligible for the reserved seats.

“PTI’s reserved seats were then distributed among three parties, PML-N, PPP and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F), effectively giving the ruling coalition a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.”

Implications of FCC’s establishment

Amnesty also raised alarm over the implications resulting from the establishment of the FCC.

The rights group warned of “serious implications for access to justice and human rights as cases relating to the application of fundamental rights under the constitution shall now lie with the new court”.

It further recalled that “powers of the Supreme Court to validate and review bans on political parties imposed by the federal government — under Article 17, which guarantees the right to freedom of association — have been transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court.”

“This has severe implications as the government has publicly made statements intending to ban its largest opposition party, PTI, in the past and the Punjab Assembly has passed a resolution to ban the PTI for being a ‘national security threat’.”

Amnesty said, “The absence of clear rules delineating jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Courts [also] creates significant confusion on which forum would hear particular cases.”

It added that the ambiguity was “likely to cause procedural delays, to the detriment of litigant’s access to justice.”

Amnesty also warned of the possibility of “further confusion regarding the interpretation of the Constitution since the new court is not bound by past precedent of the Supreme Court”.

It also raised alarm over the process for the appointment of judges to the FCC and noted that the first batch of FCC judges was appointed directly by the executive branch.

“The first batch of judges to the Federal Constitutional Court and its chief justice are to be appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister, bypassing the JCP process under Article 175-A of the Constitution. These initial appointments raise concerns regarding direct political interference by the executive branch.

“Concerns persist for future appointments given the composition of the JCP after the 26th Amendment, as members of Parliament outnumber the judicial members and can thus dictate all future appointments.”

Amnesty quoted the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers as saying that “there is a risk of court capture when laws establish that political branches should be involved in selecting judges to hear certain politically sensitive cases.”

“Additionally, the president also has powers to determine the number of judges for the new court, allowing the ruling government to change the composition of the court if certain judges are deemed unfavourable,” the rights group said.

These apprehensions deepened when the chief justice and first four judges of the FCC were sworn in on November 14, 2025, less than 24 hours after the 27th Amendment became law,” it added.

“No criteria or justification for the appointments were provided.”

It also took note of the changes made to the process of the transfer of high court judges under Article 200.

The Amendment “gives the president absolute powers to make transfers, subject merely to recommendation from the JCP. The arbitrary and executive-heavy nature of this power now opens the possibility of transfer used as a punitive measure against judges who rule against the Pakistani authorities”.

Amnesty further noted that the Amendment also declared that any judge who refused transfer would be suspended and their case would be reviewed by the SJC, which now has powers to remove them for refusal of transfer under Article 209.

“This is in direct violation of the Basic Principles that state that removal of judges must only be for reasons of ‘incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties’,” it said.

Lifetime immunity ‘paves way for unchecked and arbitrary use of power’

Amnesty — referring to the lifetime immunity granted to the president from criminal prosecution and arrest, as well as to the ranks of Field Marshal, Marshal of Air Force and Admiral of the Fleet under the 27th Amendment — said that the absolute lifetime immunity for such positions “paves the way for unchecked and arbitrary use of power and disregard for the rule of law.”

The group warned that “the wide-ranging nature of the immunity violates the fundamental principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.

It also noted that the clause violated the “right to remedy under Article 2(3) for anyone pursuing legal recourse under criminal law for actions done by these officials”.

Amnesty maintained that while immunity was permissible under international law, it still had limits, “particularly in cases of war crimes and major violations”.

“The International Court of Justice has also held that immunity only extends for ‘officials acts’, and serious international crimes cannot be regarded as official acts,” it added.

Amnesty also noted that military officials with the ranks of Field Marshal, Marshal of Air Force and Admiral of the Fleet had been declared “national heroes” under the 27th Amendment and “‘shall not be removed from office except on the ground or charges and in the manner provided under Article 47’, which deals with the removal and impeachment of the president who can only be removed on grounds of ‘physical or mental incapacity’, for violating the Constitution, or ‘gross misconduct’ as well as a resolution by two-thirds or more of the membership of Parliament”.

“It bears noting that the current chief of army staff was appointed as Field Marshal after the conflict with India in May 2025, and stands to benefit directly from these protections,” Amnesty said.