The constitutional saga is far from over as streets are abuzz with chatter of ruling allies seemingly gearing up for the 27th and even 28th amendment to hit the parliament.
On the other end of the table, the legal fraternity and some opposition leaders continue to demand a repeal of the much-talked-about Constitutional Package, brought to the fore to establish judicial reforms in the so-called wider interest.
Amid petitions filed in the high courts and fiery rhetoric by the likes of PTI’s Latif Khosa, one may even begin to wonder about the seriousness of challenges to the 26th Amendment. Building on what Mr Khosa said himself, there is little to understand in the opposition’s stance as utter confusion prevails within the PTI ranks.
With various leaders expressing their views on the amendment and the party divided between its decision to join the judicial committee or turn the wheels of change in sync with its original stance, the entire party appears nothing more than a heated hotchpotch of ideas.
However, the increasing traction of rumour mills does call for a solid, no-minced-words response from the state with regard to what it wishes to achieve from a rare and controversial decision to add to the very essence of the constitution.
There’s ample evidence from countries around the world wherein extraordinary circumstances have been quoted to uphold the constitutional expansion of one branch’s authority over another. Unfortunately, unlike Pakistan, those parliaments did not face a legitimacy crisis and successfully established a procedure free of loopholes to make the amendment acceptable.
Considering how most of the state’s attention in the past few weeks has been fixated on building political support to increase the influence of the legislature and the executive in key aspects of the judiciary, it now needs to use the same devotion to convince the masses and the judiciary about the maturity and absolute prevalence of merit in applications of these newly-acquired powers.
Watching the former chief justice take a final bow deflated the metaphorical balloon, yet the need to resolve the legal community’s concerns and move forward still persists. *