Policy Brief
Most democracies recognise temporary immunity for sitting leaders to ensure uninterrupted governance and prevent politically motivated litigation. Countries such as France (Article 67 of the Constitution), Pakistan (Article 248(2) of the Constitution), and the United States (through Department of Justice policy) provide such safeguards. While some countries grant former presidents extended immunity, in most democracies, protection ends once a leader’s term expires, making them accountable under the law like any other citizen.
27th Amendment: What’s at stake for Pakistan?
Pakistan’s future democratic landscape could face profound repercussions from the newly proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment, which seeks to embed lifetime immunity for the President while restructuring key military and judicial institutions. The amendment inserts the phrase “Notwithstanding any judgment of any court” into Article 248, bars any criminal proceedings against the President for life, and against a governor only during their term, and prevents courts from issuing arrest or imprisonment orders against the officeholder.
Beyond the presidency, the amendment establishes a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) with original jurisdiction over constitutional disputes, abolishes the post of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, consolidates military command under a new Chief of the Defence Forces, and extends equivalent immunity to top military officers promoted to ranks such as Field Marshal, Marshal of the Air Force, or Admiral of the Fleet.
The Risks of Lifetime Immunity
Lifetime immunity extends legal protection indefinitely, including for acts unrelated to official duties. Proponents argue it preserves respect for office and shields leaders from political harassment. Yet in practice such provisions undermine constitutional accountability, weaken judicial oversight, and insulate public officeholders from scrutiny – especially in countries where democratic institutions are still consolidating.
Global Norms and Legal Alignment
Institutionalising lifetime immunity creates structural misalignment with international legal standards. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for example, explicitly rejects immunity based solely on official capacity in cases of international crimes. Worldwide trends increasingly prioritise accountability over exemption, reinforcing the principle that no individual – regardless of status – is above the law.
Policy Implications
Extending immunity for life beyond the tenure of a head of state or senior officeholder represents a fundamental shift from protecting governance to protecting individuals. In Pakistan, such a measure risks entrenching elite impunity, eroding the separation of powers, and weakening judicial independence. Lifetime protection reduces the incentive for leaders and top officials to act transparently and responsibly, while insulating them from post-office scrutiny diminishes public confidence in institutions.
The proposed amendment also sets a precedent that could be replicated for other high offices, including senior military leadership, further concentrating authority and reducing the checks and balances critical to democratic governance. By bypassing judicial review and insulating executive actions from accountability, lifetime immunity can create a governance environment in which political elites are above the law – fundamentally at odds with both constitutional principles and international norms.
From a policy standpoint, the focus should remain on ensuring that functional immunity during tenure safeguards governance continuity, while post-office accountability is preserved through independent courts, parliamentary oversight, and transparent institutional mechanisms. Maintaining this balance is essential to uphold the rule of law, protect democratic legitimacy, and reinforce institutional credibility.