December 5, 2025
By Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
The Government of Pakistan has issued a sharp initial rebuke to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, over her communication regarding the recently enacted 27th Constitutional Amendment.
The diplomatic response, delivered through the Permanent Mission of Pakistan in Geneva, dismissed the Rapporteur’s concerns as “ungrounded and misplaced assertions,” firmly asserting that the constitutional process was a legitimate exercise of parliamentary democracy.
The amendment, which introduces sweeping changes including the establishment of a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), has sparked significant controversy and alarm within Pakistan’s legal community and international human rights bodies.
Sovereignty versus international standards
Dated December 2, 2025, the letter from Bilal Ahmed, Permanent Representative of Pakistan, acknowledged receipt of the Rapporteur’s communication, Ref. OL PAK 14/2025. The core of Pakistan’s argument rested on the principle of national sovereignty and the democratic legitimacy of its legislative process.
“Like all parliamentary democracies, any amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan remains the exclusive domain of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan,” the Permanent Representative stated. “Democracy and democratic methods form the bedrock of civil and political rights, and therefore must be respected.”
The government maintained that the constitutional amendments were “undertaken through a robust and transparent democratic process, in line with the Constitution of Pakistan” and that all procedures were duly followed.
Rapporteur flags ‘significant threat’ to judicial independence
The special communication by Satterthwaite, dated November 28, 2025, detailed a litany of profound concerns, arguing that the 27th Amendment poses a “significant threat to judicial independence” and undermines Pakistan’s commitments under international human rights law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The Rapporteur highlighted the swift and arguably non-consultative nature of the reform. She observed that the bill, consisting of almost fifty amendments, was tabled on November 8, 2025, and signed into law by the President on November 13, 2025.
“I observe that both amendments [the 26th and 27th] were enacted in a matter of several days, and without formal consultation with the judiciary as an affected branch of government,”Ms. Satterthwaite wrote.
The communication focuses heavily on the creation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), which is set to supplant the Supreme Court in key constitutional jurisdictions. The Rapporteur expressed serious misgivings about the executive’s role in the FCC’s pivotal first appointments.
She recalled that the Human Rights Committee has warned that situations in which the Executive is “able to control or direct” the judiciary are “incompatible with the notion of an independent tribunal.”
Executive appointment and judicial immunity at issue
The core issues raised by the Special Rapporteur center on three major structural changes introduced by the 27th Amendment:
1. Creation and appointment of the FCC: The Act grants the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, the authority to appoint the first Chief Justice of the FCC from among the existing Supreme Court Judges. Furthermore, the selection of the first batch of FCC Judges is also heavily influenced by the Executive. This, the Rapporteur argued, “vests unusual power in the President for the initial appointment of judges of what has become the highest court in Pakistan.”
2. Forced transfer of judges: The amendment alters Article 200 of the Constitution to allow for the transfer of High Court judges without their consent, backed by the threat of disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council if they refuse. The Rapporteur explicitly stated that the automatic suspension and commencement of disciplinary proceedings against judges who refuse transfer “violates international standards.”
3. Extension of lifetime immunity: The most controversial provision cited by the Rapporteur is the amendment to Article 248, which extends lifetime criminal immunity to the President, and extends similar protections, including guarantees of lifetime criminal immunity, to the Field Marshal, Marshal of the Air Force, and Admiral of the Fleet under Article 243(9).
The Rapporteur strongly condemned the immunity extension, noting that it “gives victims of human, civil, or other rights violations no recourse to a remedy against these officials.”
Pakistan defends its legal position
In its preliminary observations, the Pakistani government directly addressed these points with its own counter-arguments, defending the changes as aligning with established legal doctrine and comparative state practice.
On the judicial appointments, the response stated that the selection of Justices from “among existing superior judicial officers, as recommended by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, reflects standard practice and compares favourably with jurisdictions where lifetime judicial appointments are made directly by the executive on partisan considerations.”
Regarding the contentious issue of immunity, the government strongly refuted the implication of unchecked power. The Permanent Representative wrote that the “extension of sovereign immunity to holders of select high offices accords with well-established legal doctrine and comparative State practice.”
The response elaborated: “Such immunity neither signifies impunity nor weakens accountability; rather, it ensures that decision-making in complex contexts remains insulated from politically motivated reprisals or vexatious litigation.”
Dialogue and transparency
Pakistan also registered its displeasure with the speed at which the UN Rapporteur’s communication was being processed for public release. “We regret the haste in which the communication based on disinformation/
Satterthwaite’s letter, however, affirmed her mandate to release the communication “via the communications reporting website after 48 hours” as is standard practice for comments on recent legislation.
The Permanent Mission of Pakistan concluded its initial response by confirming its commitment to further engagement: “We look forward to remaining in contact with your office in the spirit of dialogue and cooperation.”
The diplomatic exchange marks the beginning of a potentially protracted legal and political battle over the fundamental structure of Pakistan’s judiciary, with the Special Rapporteur stating plainly in her conclusion: “I strongly urge careful review of these amendments, since they pose a real risk of harm to judicial independence and to individuals’ rights to a fair and public hearing.”