• Proportional representation in SPC for CJP gives govt advantage: HRCP.
• Shows concerns over opposition's allegations during passage of law.
• "Political influence to compromise credibility of constitutional benches."
  

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has expressed strong reservations over certain aspects of the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act 2024, which was passed into law on October 21.

Although the amendments are more tempered than those proposed in earlier drafts, the human rights watchdog expressed fear that the law will erode judicial independence has not been allayed, HRCP Chairman Ahsan Iqbal Butt said in a statement on Tuesday.

"First, the manner in which constitutional benches are to be established, as well as their composition, raise serious concerns that, in practice, the credibility of these benches may be compromised by direct political influence," he added.

Second, the composition of the Special Parliamentary Committee that will nominate the chief justice of Pakistan (comprising members of the Senate and National Assembly according to their parties' proportional representation) "gives the government of the day a dangerous advantage, potentially subjugating the judiciary in contravention of Pakistan's obligations under Article 14 of the ICCPR", it said.

It read that the HRCP does not object to the amendment to Article 184(3) under which constitutional benches cannot exercise suo moto jurisdiction.

The watchdog also acknowledged that Article 9A, which makes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment a fundamental right, was a significant and long-overdue amendment, which the government must implement urgently.

The HRCP showed deep concerns about the opposition's allegations of coercion with respect to supporting the passage of the Act.

"These are extremely serious and must weigh on the conscience of those who proposed the Act. Such allegations must not be dismissed out of hand," Butt said.

The human rights watchdog reiterated that the absence of careful and sustained public debate on a single, official version of the bill — which any constitutional amendment warrants — also raised questions as to the legitimacy of its intent.