What were the architects of the 27th Amendment thinking when they decided to grant a lifetime of immunity from prosecution to a select few? The very notion seems to contradict the principles of justice and equality before the law. Even Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif found the idea problematic enough to publicly distance himself from it — a rare moment of political clarity amid a troubling proposal.
Reports revealed that some senators belonging to the PML-N had proposed extending lifetime immunity to the prime minister, mirroring the protections being considered for the president and five-star-ranked military officers under the draft 27th Amendment. However, Mr. Sharif stated that he immediately ordered the withdrawal of this suggestion, rightly 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 stance, one that invites reflection: did the other proposed beneficiaries pause to consider the moral and constitutional implications of placing themselves above the law?
The controversial clauses, which sought to shield the head of state and top military officials from criminal prosecution, arrest, or any legal proceedings for life, are deeply concerning. They raise a simple but profound question — why would any upright individual need such protection from the law? What purpose does this ‘honour’ serve, except to safeguard those who may fear accountability for their actions?
Supporters of the proposal argue that Pakistan’s justice system has often been weaponised against political figures, with cases fabricated to punish those who fall out of favour. There is truth in that concern. The history of Pakistan’s politics is replete with examples of selective justice and vindictive prosecutions. Yet, if the solution to judicial overreach is to grant immunity to a few powerful offices, then the principle of equality under the law is already dead.
Indeed, if such immunity were justified by the misuse of legal mechanisms, then the Prime Minister’s Office — often the most frequent target of politically motivated cases — would have the strongest claim to protection. But as Mr. Sharif correctly argued, public office demands accountability, not exemption. The idea that any official can live above the law for life contradicts the very essence of democracy.
As the old adage warns, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When authority is paired with unquestioned immunity, it inevitably breeds arrogance, impunity, and abuse. Granting lifetime protection to those already wielding immense influence would not safeguard democracy — it would erode it from within.
Ultimately, the proposal violates the social contract between citizens and the state. Leaders are meant to serve the people, not rule over them as untouchable entities. To even consider codifying such immunity into law is to betray the principle that no one — not a president, not a general, not even a prime minister — should ever stand above the law.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
