WHAT were the architects of the 27th Amendment thinking when they decided to extend a lifetime of immunity from prosecution for select individuals? Even the prime minister found the idea problematic enough to publicly and immediately distance himself from it.

For context, it had emerged that certain senators belonging to the PML-N had argued for lifetime immunity to be extended to the prime minister, along the same lines as what was proposed for the president and five-star-ranked armed forces officers in the draft 27th Amendment. However, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said he immediately ordered the withdrawal of this proposal upon learning of it, noting that, “As a matter of principle, an elected prime minister must remain fully accountable, both before the court of law and the people”. It is a commendable position, and one wonders whether the other beneficiaries paused to think of the moral implications of the move.

The controversial clauses, which grant lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution, arrest, or legal proceedings to the head of state and the highest military authorities, should not have been contemplated. The clauses give rise to the question: why would any upstanding citizen need such sweeping protections from the law? And what is the point of such an ‘honour’, considering that it would be useful only if its recipients indulge in controversial behaviour?

The only justification seems to be that the law is often abused to heap misery on public figures once they fall out of favour. The history of cases brought against elected representatives provides ample evidence of why one should be wary of the Pakistani justice system. However, if that is the reasoning, why should such immunity be offered to select offices only? The Prime Minister’s Office, whose past occupants seem to have been disproportionately targeted in political witch-hunts, would seem to have a bigger claim on it.

But, as Mr Sharif has rightly pointed out, those who occupy high offices should remain fully accountable for their actions “as a matter of principle”. The idea that anyone can be, quite literally, above the law for their lifetime contradicts the idea of justice. The adage ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ has endured through history for a reason: it accurately predicts that the more power and control an individual can exercise over others, the more likely they are to behave without restraint.

Couple that with guaranteed immunity from any accountability for their actions, and it seems like a recipe for further empowering the recipients of unchecked authority. The idea of lifetime immunity also flies in the face of the social contract, under which leaders are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. It is absurd that parliament has even considered it.

Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2025