HAS the storm passed? The coming days will tell. The ruling coalition’s much-debated ‘constitutional package’ was finally endorsed by the Senate late Sunday evening, capping off weeks of fervent politicking and negotiation over its different provisions.

It was headed to the National Assembly at the time these lines were being written. Compared to the draft that had emerged after the abortive first attempt to bulldoze the amendments, the bill approved yesterday appeared to be a more watered-down version.

Even the PTI, which lost an important opportunity to suggest improvements in the bill by boycotting the voting process, acknowledged that it was ‘much better’ than the initial proposals. The party’s leader in the Senate, Barrister Ali Zaffar, was profuse in his praise for JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman for this ‘achievement’, even though he maintained his party’s reservations on the new process for judges’ selection and key appointments in the superior judiciary.

The bill endorsed by parliament included 22 amendments in all, less than half of the over 50 provisions that were part of earlier drafts. This depleted version was also almost universally acceptable, with PTI leaders saying they would have participated in the voting process if it was held at a later date, mainly because they still needed to consult their jailed party chief on some remaining items.

From first impressions, it appeared that the new appointment process for the Supreme Court chief justice remained the most contentious of the proposed amendments, with the government getting an unprecedented say in who makes the cut. Given the long-running feuds and divisions, both within the apex court and between the branches of the state, and their impact on major political developments in the country, the changes being made could trigger a new stand-off between the legal fraternity and the government. How the lawyers’ community reacts remains to be seen.

A fear remains that the ruling coalition may try to misuse the amendments to appoint judges of their choice to the new ‘constitutional bench’, or elevate a ‘like-minded’ judge to the chief justice’s position. Perhaps the PTI’s should have taken its responsibility, as the primary opponent of these amendments, more seriously. It should have presented alternative ideas or proposed changes to make the process ‘fairer’. Even if these proposals were rejected during the process, it could have at least claimed to have offered other options.

That said, the responsibility of building a consensus remained with the government, and if achieving buy-in from all parties meant taking a few more days or even weeks, the option should have been exhausted. Instead, the government bound itself to an arbitrary deadline, seemingly to pre-empt the upcoming change of guard at the apex court. It remains to be seen how matters will proceed from here.

Published in Dawn, October 21st, 2024