THE 27th Constitutional Amendment has become debatable among different circles and has divided society into pro- and anti-amendment camps according to their respective understanding and interpretation.
This amendment mainly revolves around the Pakistan Military and Judiciary. In the former case, the anti-amendment camp began to target Field Marshal General Asim Munir personally; in the latter case, it expressed reservations about the curtailment of the powers of the apex court of Pakistan.
First, the concept of immunity needs to be understood along with its dimensions. Immunity is an internationally recogniszed concept. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, foreign heads of state and diplomats are immune from civil and criminal processes of foreign countries. E. J. Kionka states: “Immunity is a defence to tort liability which is conferred upon an entire group or class of persons or entities under circumstances where considerations of public policy are thought to require special protection for the persons, activity or entity in question at the expense of those injured by its tortious act. Historically, tort litigations against units of government, public officers and charities, and between spouses, parents and children, have been limited or prohibited on this basis.” (Ref. E. J. Kionka: Torts in a Nutshell, 341 (2nd ed. 1992), cited in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition.)
Immunity may be absolute, qualified, legislative, executive, judicial, diplomatic or constitutional. Absolute immunity is a complete exemption from civil liability, usually afforded to officials while performing their duties. Qualified immunity, on the other hand, is immunity from civil liability that is conditioned or limited, for instance by a requirement of good faith or due care. Legislative immunity is enjoyed by lawmakers, executive immunity is enjoyed by elected officials of the executive branch and judicial immunity is granted to judges. In addition, diplomatic immunity is enjoyed by foreign diplomats and envoys, sovereign immunity is enjoyed by a sovereign government and constitutional immunity is contained within the constitution.
The concept of immunity is not new but is inherited in the very spirit of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. For instance, Article 248 of the Constitution provides immunity to certain high-ranking officials, including the President, Governors, Prime Minister and Ministers, from being answerable in any court for the exercise of their official powers and duties. This article also prohibits criminal proceedings against the President or a Governor during their term of office and prevents the issuance of arrest or imprisonment processes against them during this time. Likewise, Members of Pakistan’s Parliament have immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings for anything they say or do while performing their parliamentary duties, as outlined in Article 66 of the Constitution. This immunity covers actions like introducing bills, motions or questions. In addition, the Members of Parliament Immunities and Privileges Act, 2023 provides exemptions from preventive detention and safeguards against arrest for specified periods. It also prevents a legal process from being served on a member within the parliament’s precincts. Moreover, the President’s Salary, Allowances and Privileges (Amendment) Act, 2018 was passed.
Coming to the 27th Amendment, the amendments in the Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force Acts are not innovative. In recent years, these political parties introduced and passed the Protection of Pakistan Act 2014, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2015, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2017, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2020, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2023, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2024, Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Act 2024, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2025, Pakistan Air Force (Amendment) Act 2025, and Pakistan Navy (Amendment) Act 2025.
In 2020, the PTI-led central government attempted to amend the Pakistan Army Act 1952 via the Pakistan Army Act (Amendment) 2020 and awarded a three-year extension in service to the then COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa. The PTI-led government introduced the bill in haste when the federal court halted the then Premier Imran Khan from giving the extension to Gen Bajwa. This Act curtailed the powers of the judiciary to challenge such an appointment. It was passed in the National Assembly with a majority of votes by almost all political parties except JUI-F, Jamaat-e-Islami and two MNAs—Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir—representing the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM).
Ironically, when these political parties are at the helm of affairs, they introduce and support such amendments and when they are on opposition benches, they oppose such changes. Unfortunately, the political leadership across the board does not bother to take into cognizance the global and regional strategic culture and environment. Keeping in view the existential security threats from the eastern and western borders of Pakistan as well as internal security threats, such amendments are the need of the hour. Pakistan was alienated at regional and global levels. Now Pakistan has gained a prominent status at both regional and international levels through an effective foreign policy. Political parties must play a responsible role by avoiding unnecessary malicious propaganda against their armed forces. They should avoid creating and widening the trust deficit between their voters and the armed forces.
—The writer is Chairman & Security Expert, Department of Political Science, Islamia College Peshawar.
