PTI voices its opposition to ‘proposed' 27th Amendment
Talking to reporters, PTI spokesperson Sheikh Waqas Akram condemned the proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment Bill, describing it as a continuation of what he termed an ongoing campaign to undermine the judiciary, following the contentious 26th Amendment.
'The 26th Amendment amounted to a judicial massacre and now they want to finish the job,' he added. 'They want a judiciary that offers no resistance. PTI will oppose this tooth and nail.'
He argued that the earlier amendment curtailed the powers of the Supreme Court and reduced the high courts to mere 'rubber stamps', warning that the new proposal would entrench this trend further.
Akram called on Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Yahya Afridi, to take a firmer stand, warning that public trust in the judiciary was steadily eroding.
'We are witnessing a slow, calculated dismantling of every safeguard within our democratic and legal frameworks,' he said.
Raising concerns over former Prime Minister Imran Khan's wellbeing in custody, Akram demanded immediate access for Khan's personal physicians, as well as a medical team from the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital, which Khan founded.
'If anything happens to Imran Khan, the state will bear full responsibility,' he said, holding the Maryam Nawaz-led Punjab provincial government accountable for his treatment while detained.
He further accused both the federal and Punjab governments of authoritarian overreach, citing custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings, and what he described as the 'unchecked power' of law enforcement agencies.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Rekindling trust
In a world where alliances are increasingly transactional, the counterterrorism partnership between Pakistan and the United States remains an evolving, if at times uneasy, example of strategic necessity. Whereas public discourse is usually preoccupied with episodes of tension (drone attacks, trust gaps and changing regional priorities), the cooperation, particularly in recent years, has become increasingly professional, mature and outcome-oriented. With old threats being replaced by new ones, the US-Pakistan counterterrorism (CT) cooperation is important not only to South Asian stability, but to world security architecture as well. A recent example of this longstanding collaboration was the January 2025 joint operation that resulted in the arrest of Sharifullah, the ISIS-K mastermind of the lethal August 2021 Kabul airport bombing. Not the arrest but the manner in which it was done was important. The Pakistani intelligence services, working in close liaison with their US counterparts, monitored then captured a high-value target without incurring political blowback and without leaking the operation. This achievement, which was celebrated by the US Department of Justice, was not so much about symbolism but rather competency, coordination and trust. And this trust seems to be on an upward curve. Centcom Commander Gen Michael Kurilla, who has retired recently, praised Pakistan as a "phenomenal partner" in the war against ISIS-K in July 2025, and was himself honoured with the Nishan-e-Imtiaz, the highest military award of Pakistan. This act, however ceremonial, amounts to a conscious resetting of relations — a shift in the mode of suspicion to a mode of common strategic outlook. But what has changed? To begin with, the two countries have apparently adjusted expectations. The pre-9/11 doctrine of "with us or against us" that previously put a strain on bilateral relations has been replaced by a more realistic, decentralised system of collaboration. Examples of this change include institutions such as the National Intelligence Fusion & Threat Assessment Centre (NIFTAC), in Pakistan, which is a locally based response that is integrated with international cooperation, especially with the American and allied intelligence organisations. Second, terrorism as such has evolved. The recurrence of Taliban in power in Afghanistan has formed new security gaps, and these gaps are easily taken advantage of by groups such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ISIS-K. They are not local actors only but transnational ones that recruit and fund globally. That is why the US not only requires Pakistan as a geographic ally but also as an operational one. Drones cannot do away with ideological insurgencies, they require boots on the ground, informants on the field and information provided by local agencies. Of course, the road ahead is not without bumps. The perennial issue of strategic mistrust, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan and regional power dynamics with India and China, will always shadow Pak-US ties. Moreover, Pakistan faces internal political instability and resurging domestic militancy, which can dilute the focus of its CT machinery. But to let these obstacles overshadow progress would be short-sighted. It is also crucial that this partnership does not become overly securitised. Counterterrorism cooperation should be complemented by economic and developmental collaboration, particularly in Pakistan's tribal and border regions. Ultimately, Pak-US CT cooperation is not a vestige of a long forgotten war-on-terrorism; it's a living, breathing necessity shaped by evolving threats and mutual dependencies. If 2025 is any indicator, it seems both sides have begun to move past suspicion and toward strategic maturity. For a world teetering on new fronts of asymmetric warfare, it's not just reassuring — it's essential.
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SBP issues Rs75 commemorative coin to celebrate Marka-e-Haq, Independence Day
The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) issued on Friday a commemorative coin of Rs75 to celebrate Marka-e-Haq - a military campaign against India in May - and the country's Independence Day. 'To honor the valor of our armed forces during the Marka-e-Haq and to celebrate Independence Day with due dignity, the federal government is pleased to issue a commemorative coin of Rs75 denomination,' SBP statement read. How Pakistan shot down India's cutting-edge fighter using Chinese gear Marka-e-Haq is the official name given to the broader conflict with India from July 22 to May 10 this year, while Bunyanum Marsoos is the name given to the operation on May 10. The metal composition, shape, and dimensions of the coin are: Metal composition: Nickel-Brass, Cu 79%, Zn 20% & Ni 1% Dimension: 30.0 mm Weight: 13.5 grams Obverse On the obverse side of the coin, the waxing crescent moon and five-pointed star facing North-West in rising position is in the center. Alongwith periphery on the top of the crescent star is inscribed in wording 'ISLAMI JAMHURIA PAKISTAN' in Urdu script. Below the crescent and on the top of two springs of wheat with arms curved upward, there is the year of issuance 2025. The face value of coin in numeral '75' in bold letters and RUPIA in Urdu script are written on the right and left sides of the crescent star respectively, according to the SBP statement. Reverse On the reverse side of the coin, wordings 'MARKA-E-HAQ' in Urdu script and '2025' in numeral are inscribed in the center. The wordings 'PAKISTAN HAMESHA ZINDABAD' in Urdu script is written alongwith the periphery on the top side of the coin. Two Fighter Aircrafts (shown on right & left sides of the coin), one Naval Ship and one Multiple Rocket Launcher System (MRLS) are shown on the reverse side of the coin. 'The coin shall be issued through the exchange counters of all the field offices of SBP Banking Services Corporation from August 15, 2025,' the central bank said.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CJP faces scrutiny over ignoring full court order in 26th Amendment case
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after Supreme Court (SC) committee minutes revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The three-member committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Munib — had ordered the petitions be fixed before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 are not consulted?" asked a lawyer, speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Likewise, advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committee - as it then was - had made a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the Amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," said advocate Jaferii. Read: SC judges urge CJP to call full court on 26th Amendment pleas Meanwhile, advocate Asad Rahim Khan said that the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciary; not to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the Court to do about it? For or against, the judges decided according to their consciences, and the law was settled. Again, that was their job," said the advocate. He further said that the greatest judicial regression in 30 years – where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud – can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph three of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. The matter should have been discussed in Full Court meeting because opinion of majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," said the senior lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in out right violation of law, he said. Since November last year, the constitutional bench is unable to decide the fate of 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Read more: Judicial reforms shape SC's first constitutional bench Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges are elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, SC judges Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for November 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
