Pakistan's latest constitutional amendment will entrench military dominance and executive control over the country's judiciary, weakening institutional checks and likely deepening political polarization and public distrust. On Nov. 13, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari approved the 27th constitutional amendment bill, which introduces significant military and judicial reforms to Pakistan's Constitution. This comes a day after Pakistan's National Assembly passed the amendment on Nov. 12 and the Senate approved it on Nov. 10. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass, which the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz secured with support from its coalition partners: the Pakistan People's Party, Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party, the Balochistan Awami Party and the National Party. The opposition boycotted both the Senate and National Assembly sessions on the reforms, staging walkouts and abstaining from the vote to protest what they called the government's rushed handling of the bill, claiming it was pushed through without sufficient debate or consultation.

The amendment consolidates military authority by giving the army chief formal control over all military branches, protecting top officers from accountability and diminishing civilian oversight, which will likely entrench the military's influence over governance and limit civilian government power. The reform creates the post of chief of defense forces, held by the army chief, and abolishes the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, placing the army chief in formal command over the air force and navy. It also establishes the commander of the National Strategic Command, responsible for nuclear forces and appointed from the army in consultation with the chief of defense forces, further centralizing strategic military control. In addition, five-star-ranked officers are granted lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution and retain their rank, privileges and uniform for life. While the five-star ranking is largely ceremonial, Pakistan's current army chief, Gen. Asim Munir, holds it, elevating his authority in the military hierarchy. Five-star officers' removal now requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, unlike previously, when senior military officers had no formal protections and could be dismissed or prosecuted under ordinary law. These changes formalize the long-standing dominance of army leadership over strategic and institutional decision-making, reduce civilian oversight over the military and limit elected governments' authority over the military. 

• The government has stated that the military reforms aim to enhance "procedural clarity and administrative structure" within the armed forces and to formalize leadership positions, ensuring the chain of command reflects current defense needs. To this end, Munir's tenure will reset with his new appointment as chief of defense forces.

The amendment also strengthens executive influence over the judiciary by creating a new constitutional court, limiting Supreme Court powers and giving the government greater control over judicial appointments and transfers, which will likely undermine judicial independence and reduce the courts' ability to check executive or military authority. On the judicial side, the amendment establishes a permanent Federal Constitutional Court with equal representation from all provinces and Islamabad, a chief justice with a three-year tenure and judges retiring at 68. It also limits the Supreme Court's authority by allowing the president, on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, to transfer judges between high courts without their consent. The Judicial Commission of Pakistan, a government-influenced body responsible for recommending appointments to the superior judiciary, gives the executive substantial control over judicial careers. These changes centralize political authority over the judiciary, weaken judicial independence and increase the courts' susceptibility to government influence, potentially reducing their capacity to act as a check on executive or military power. 

• According to Pakistan's law minister, the 27th amendment was proposed in response to the growing number of constitutional petitions filed before the Supreme Court, which has "significantly impacted the timely disposal of regular civil and criminal cases." 
• The 27th amendment builds on the 26th amendment, which was approved in October 2024 and increased government influence over the judiciary by enabling it to appoint judges aligned with its agenda, a move widely criticized for undermining judicial independence. The bill removed the Supreme Court's authority to initiate cases independently, limited the chief justice's tenure to three years, and established a special parliamentary committee to appoint the next chief justice from the three senior-most Supreme Court judges. 
• The 2024 reforms also reshaped the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, the body responsible for nominating judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. Before the 26th amendment, judges held a majority of seats on the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, ensuring substantial judicial oversight of appointments. The amendment expanded the commission to include two members of the National Assembly, two members of the Senate, and one woman or non-Muslim member nominated by the speaker of the National Assembly, alongside the law minister, the attorney general and a representative of the bar. This shift reduced the proportion of judicial members and increased political representation, giving the government direct influence over judicial nominations.

The opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party's nationwide protests raise the risk of unrest, and although government control will likely limit the scale of the demonstrations, the amendment will still intensify political polarization and strain civilian‑judiciary relations. The PTI has called for nationwide protests over the 27th amendment, accusing the government of undermining civilian oversight and provincial autonomy by centralizing authority in the federal executive and military. The party contends that even with formal provincial representation in the Federal Constitutional Court, the reforms concentrate key powers, such as judicial appointments, control over court procedures and oversight of how constitutional disputes are prioritized, in the federal executive and military, which limits the practical ability of provincial representatives to influence rulings or block federal overreach. As a result, the party claims national decisions will be more likely to favor coalition priorities over local needs. Widespread criticism from opposition parties, civil society and legal experts has increased the risk of sustained unrest, including potential clashes with security forces or disruptions to public services. The government, however, will likely heavily crack down on dissent, suggesting that these protests are likely to remain short-lived or limited in scope. Even so, the constitutional reforms will likely intensify political polarization, particularly between the ruling coalition and the opposition. While the 27th amendment does not formally restrict provincial influence, perceptions that its reforms encroach on provincial authority could fracture the ruling coalition, especially among allies with strong provincial bases, and complicate the passage of future legislation requiring unity. The amendment will likely further undermine already low public confidence in state institutions, as citizens perceive the government as prioritizing control over accountability. Over time, this will likely erode the judiciary's perceived independence, strain civil-military relations, and create long-term risks for institutional credibility and political stability.