Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has commended outgoing Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa for facilitating the enactment of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. He asserted that such legislation would not have been possible under any other chief justice. This statement came as the Shehbaz Sharif-led government, with the support of allies like the PPP, successfully passed the controversial amendment in both the lower and upper houses of Parliament.
The 26th Constitutional Amendment alters the procedure for appointing the CJP, establishes a fixed tenure for the position, and creates constitutional benches. During an interview with BBC Urdu, Bilawal defended the timing of the legislation against criticism from the opposition, which argues that it was enacted at a “questionable time” and was “person-specific.”
Defending the Timing
When questioned about the timing of the amendment, Bilawal stated, “In the judicial history of Pakistan, there’s one man […] that has shown us that he’s willing to obey parliament even at the cost of his personal power.” He emphasized the unique position held by CJP Isa, suggesting that he had the integrity to prioritize parliamentary authority over personal ambition.
Bilawal, who previously served as foreign minister under PM Shehbaz, noted that allies utilized the opportunity while CJP Isa was in office. He explained, “We did have a window because we have seen how other judges have moulded the Constitution […] to serve their personal interests.” He appreciated CJP Isa’s ability to resist pressure from fellow judges who might have attempted to sway him away from supporting parliamentary initiatives.
Concerns Over Potential Leadership Changes
The interviewer raised a pertinent question about whether the government could have passed the amendments if Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior-most judge, had become the CJP. Bilawal responded by criticizing previous judgments, particularly regarding reserved seats, claiming they were “orchestrated” to weaken parliamentary strength. He also argued that the ruling on Article 63-A was not grounded in the Constitution.
He expressed concern that the passage of such judicial reforms would have faced greater challenges had those decisions been enforced, regardless of who assumed the role of chief justice.
Follow us on Google News, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook,Whats App, and TikTok for latest updates