Critiques from abroad

The 26th Amendment has ignited diverse legal and political debates within Pakistan, drawing both domestic and international attention. However, critiques from foreign entities seem less grounded compared to those emerging from within the country. It is essential to recognise that Pakistan’s political parties have historically used international organisations as lobbying tools to advance their agendas. The current opposition has gone as far as calling on the IMF to delay loan approvals and sought backing from international human rights groups. Given this context, it is important to approach external criticism with caution, as not all feedback may reflect impartial analysis. Several organisations, including United Nations human rights bodies, have expressed concerns that the 26th Amendment could compromise the judiciary’s independence and authority – concerns shared by other foreign actors.

While such criticism might be more understandable if it came from within Pakistan, its source from international platforms feels misplaced. Decisions about a nation’s judiciary – its structure, jurisdiction, and appointments – are inherently domestic matters. External entities have no legitimate authority to dictate how these issues should be managed. Ultimately, this amendment represents Pakistan’s exercise of its sovereign right to reform its governance structure.

Sameen Shakeel

Karachi