Pakistan's Constitutional Shift: Why Army Chief's New Powers Raise Alarm

The amendment aims to restructure the Supreme Court, set up a new Federal Constitutional Court and restructure the hierarchy of the armed forces. These amendments establish a framework in which the Chief of Army Staff also becomes the Chief of the Defence Forces (CDF) and may further be promoted to the post of Field Marshal, along with lifelong privileges and immunity, L Ali Khan, founder of Legal Scholar Academy and an Emeritus Professor of Law at the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, wrote in a commentary for the Jurist News.

"The proposed amendments to Article 243 have a direct impact on accountability and the rule of law. Specifically, the changes establish the Army Chief's dominance, constitutionalize the Field Marshal position, politicise the Field Marshal rank, and grant an unprecedented immunity that could shield the Field Marshal from any legal accountability. The PCA's timing -- before the retirement of a senior general--suggests it aims not just to streamline command but to centralize unprecedented authority in a single military leader, the Army Chief," wrote Khan.

"Since the government has already awarded the title of Field Marshal to General Asim Munir, the proposed amendments to 243 directly and exclusively empower him. By amending Article 243 of the Constitution, the PCA eliminates the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and transfers its coordinating authority to the Army Chief, who will also hold the new title of Chief of the Defence Forces (CODF). Henceforth, every Army Chief will command not only the land forces but also the Navy, Air Force, and intelligence branches under a unified structure," he added.

The merger centralises power in a way that was not known even during prior military regimes in Pakistan. In the past, Pakistan's Army Chief was the most influential figure within the armed forces. However, the air and naval chiefs were independent of his direct command. The PCA now institutionalises a hierarchy that places the Army Chief above all other military officers in all branches, changing a once dominant post into a constitutionally supreme one. Section 9 of the PCA Article 243 gives immunity to the Field Marshal under Article 248 of the Constitution, which states that 'No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President . . . In any court during his term of office.' Field Marshal would also be granted this protection, the Jurist News reported.

By amending Article 248, the PCA breaks a fundamental barrier between civilian and military accountability. The immunity would be granted to the Field Marshal, which implies that once an Army Chief gets elevated to the position of Field Marshal, he would enjoy immunity for life. If he commits a crime as Pakistan's Army Chief, he is protected since he is also the Field Marshal. This causes serious legal inconsistency as the immunity of the President lasts until he is in office, however, the Field Marshal's immunity would last for life. His immunity remains constitutionally protected even after leaving the command.

A report in Jurist News stated, "The proposed Twenty-Seventh Amendment signifies not only a structural change to Pakistan's defense system but also a constitutional shift in civil-military relations. By granting lifelong absolute immunity to the Field Marshal, the PCA risks placing the rule of law beneath his authority, especially when he serves as the Army Chief. The principles of constitutional democracy require that all public power, whether civilian or military, be exercised in accordance with the law and remain subject to accountability and oversight.

"If passed without revision, the PCA will permit the Field Marshal to operate beyond those limits, institutionalizing a form of Field Marshal exceptionalism that conflicts with constitutional governance. No one should be above the law for life or exempt from Article 6 of the Constitution. If enacted, Pakistan's Twenty-Seventh Amendment will serve as a global example of how constitutional design can justify military dominance within a democratic framework. The lesson is clear: when absolute immunity replaces accountability, the constitution ceases to be a restraint and becomes a shield for those who violate it," it added.

- IANS