Recent criticism from Amnesty International on Constitutional Amendments in Pakistan seems misplaced, with a strong impression of unnecessary meddling in legislative matters. The process of legislation, including all amendments, has always taken place as per the processes laid down in the Constitution. In the presence of the upper and lower houses of the parliament, Pakistan neither needs validation nor advisories from any organisation or forum regarding the legislative processes. Back in November 2025, in response to similar criticism from the office of United Nation Human Rights Commissioner, the foreign office of Pakistan presented the stance of state in very clear words; “Pakistan notes with deep concern the ungrounded and misplaced apprehensions aired on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the 27th constitutional amendment adopted by the two-third majority of the parliament of Pakistan. Like all parliamentary democracies, all legislation, as well as any amendment to the Constitution, remains the exclusive domain of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan. Democracy and democratic methods form the bedrock of civil and political rights, and therefore must be respected.
The constitutional amendments adopted by the Parliament of Pakistan followed due procedures as enshrined in Pakistan’s Constitution. Pakistan remains fully committed to protecting, promoting and upholding human rights, human dignity, basic freedoms and the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. While Pakistan gives due importance to the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it is regrettable that Pakistan’s views and ground realities were not reflected in the statement issued.
We urge the High Commissioner to respect the sovereign decisions of Pakistan’s parliament and avoid commentary that reflects political bias and misinformation.”
By all means, a constitutional amendment remains an internal legislative affair carried out through mechanisms defined by the Constitution itself. Likewise, the right forum for any validation or disagreement has to be strictly under the constitution, ie Parliament, the judiciary, and the public sphere. As a matter of principle, the Government of Pakistan has generally dismissed criticism from irrelevant foreign bodies regarding the Constitutional Amendments. The government’s stance is built on the following primary arguments.
Like all parliamentary democracies, all legislation, as well as any amendment to the Constitution, remains the exclusive domain of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan.
One, the Pakistani government, primarily through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), asserts that legislation and constitutional amendments are the exclusive domain of the country’s elected representatives. All international organisations should respect the “sovereign decisions” of the Parliament. Two; Official statements have characterised the concerns as “ungrounded,” “misplaced,” and reflecting “political bias”. The government maintains that the amendments followed all due legal procedures as enshrined in the Constitution and were passed by the required two-thirds majority in both houses. Three, while dismissing the specific criticisms of the amendments, the government continues to claim it is “fully committed” to protecting human rights and the rule of law as defined by Pakistan’s own constitutional framework. This argument is worth noting that international reports fail to reflect the “ground realities” and complexities of Pakistan’s legal and security environment. Four; In related contexts, government officials have emphasised the need to counter “anti-state narratives” which are clearly intended to destabilise the country or weaken public trust in state institutions. Therefore, reports from international rights groups largely remain disconnected from ground realities and portray false, bleak impressions. Five; Amnesty International and suck like other organisations should address situations where suffering is not theoretical but catastrophic, such as IIOJK, where an entire population lives under prolonged restrictions, Gaza, where civilian life has been devastated, and countries like Yemen, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, and Sudan, where conflict, sanctions, and power politics have had severe consequences. Moral authority requires consistent and unbiased application, not selective commentary.
No manmade system is perfect and remains liable to improvement, but collective issues like legislation, being linked to national sovereignty, cannot be modified based on selective interventions from foreign organisations.
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Islamabad.