Pakistan’s Constitution Has A New Boss

Pakistan has spent decades trying to settle one question: who really runs the country?

Its latest constitutional experiment offers a remarkably direct answer: The military does. And this time, it has tried to write that answer into the Constitution.

The 27th Constitutional Amendment, followed by the Defence Forces of Pakistan Act 2026 and changes to the National Command Authority law, has placed Field Marshal Asim Munir at the centre of Pakistan’s military and strategic command structure.

The biggest change is simple. The old Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee was essentially a coordinating post. The new Chief of Defence Forces is a commander, with authority over the Army, Navy and Air Force. Munir already holds the post while serving as Army chief.

The new Defence Forces Headquarters at Chaklala, Rawalpindi, brings the three services under a single command. The CDF also gets sweeping powers over military personnel, including retirement, release, discharge and retention, and can alter retirement ages and service terms.

In other words, Pakistan has taken its three military commands as well as the strategic (nuclear) command, and put them under one man. That man happens to be the Army chief.

The amended National Command Authority law replaces references to the old Joint Chiefs chairman with the Army chief, who is simultaneously CDF. The same military office therefore sits at the top of both the conventional command structure and the country’s strategic command system.

A new four-star Commander of the National Strategic Command has also been created. General Syed Aamer Raza was appointed to the position in July 2026. He gets a three-year term, with a possible three-year extension on the CDF’s recommendation.

His appointment and extension cannot be challenged in court, and normal retirement rules do not apply.

There is a reasonable military argument for greater integration. Modern warfare requires armies, navies, air forces, drones and missiles to work together.

But this is more than a military reorganisation. It concentrates military authority in a single hierarchy while reducing the ability of other institutions to challenge it.

And Parliament was given little opportunity to object.

The bills were introduced on August 20 as supplementary agenda items, without the usual committee scrutiny or extended debate. Opposition lawmakers walked out. Even PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari criticised the manner in which the legislation was pushed through and apologised on the assembly floor.

Advertisement

Apparently, when you are rewriting the command structure of a nuclear-armed country, consultation is an optional extra.

The 27th Amendment also changes Pakistan’s judiciary. A new Federal Constitutional Court has been created to deal with constitutional questions, fundamental rights and federal-provincial disputes. The Supreme Court loses much of its constitutional jurisdiction and its broad suo motu powers.

The Judicial Commission has also been reorganised. It now has greater political representation and can transfer High Court judges between provinces without their consent. Judges who refuse can face disciplinary proceedings.

The sequence is hard to miss: concentrate military power, reduce judicial scrutiny and then protect the people exercising that power from prosecution.

That brings us to the most remarkable part of the exercise: A lifetime pass from prosecution.

The amendment gives the President and provincial governors lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings, arrest and civil proceedings. Five-star military officers, including Field Marshal “Mullah” Munir, receive similar protection. Their rank, uniform, protocol and privileges are guaranteed for life.

This is where Pakistan’s recent history becomes relevant.

Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf was convicted of high treason in 2019 for subverting the Constitution. The new immunity provisions effectively prevent a future five-star officer covered by them from facing the same kind of prosecution.

Munir has therefore found a rather ingenious solution to the problem of generals being prosecuted after they leave power: make sure the Constitution says they cannot be prosecuted.

The drafting, meanwhile, has not always kept pace with the grandeur of the constitutional project.

Section 3(3) of the official Defence Forces Act contains this extraordinary sentence: “The Chief of the De and control of the Armed Government for all matters and oversight of implications for th fense Forces shall have the operational command Forces, and shall be responsible to the Federal regulations, instructions, notifications’ orders”

That is the actual text reproduced in the official record.

A law intended to reorganise the command of a nuclear-armed state apparently went through the system with a sentence that looks as though it lost a fight with a photocopier.

Pakistan has tried this before. The claim that this arrangement will permanently stabilise Pakistan should be treated with some historical caution.

• • Ayub Khan seized power in 1958, became Field Marshal and built a political system around military rule. It eventually collapsed and he was forced to resign.
  • Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1977 and used constitutional changes, including the Eighth Amendment, to strengthen his system. Later governments dismantled much of that arrangement through the 13th Amendment.
  • Pervez Musharraf seized power in 1999 and used the 17th Amendment to give his rule constitutional cover. The 18th Amendment later rolled much of it back. Musharraf himself eventually faced a high-treason conviction.

   
  The pattern is familiar: a general takes power, constitutional changes are introduced in the name of stability, the arrangement is declared necessary and durable, and a later political order starts dismantling it.

  Asim Munir’s model tries to learn from Musharraf’s fate. Rather than simply putting a general in charge of the government, it keeps the civilian facade while putting military power deeper into the constitutional machinery. It also makes the principal beneficiary extremely difficult to touch.

  Advertisement

  

  For India, the important question is not whether the amendment automatically makes Pakistan more aggressive. The more immediate concern is decision-making.The May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict is explicitly cited as justification for the new command structure. Islamabad presents its performance in Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos as evidence that integrated military command works.

  A unified command can certainly make military responses faster. But when conventional forces, strategic forces and senior military appointments are concentrated in one hierarchy, there are fewer institutional barriers between decision and action.

   
  Between two nuclear-armed neighbours, that deserves attention.

  The regional implications do not stop at India. Pakistan has also moved closer to Saudi Arabia and Turkey through the Mecca  Joint Defence Agreement, which says an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all.

  The agreement envisages joint exercises and defence-industrial cooperation, with Saudi Arabia providing financing, Turkey technology and Pakistan military manpower, training and logistics. That could increase Pakistan’s regional influence. It could also pull Pakistan into conflicts beyond South Asia.

  Meanwhile, the problems that supposedly require such centralised authority remain: worsening violence in Balochistan, economic vulnerability and dependence on Gulf investment.

  And that is the central weakness of the Munir model. It assumes that concentrating power creates stability.

  Pakistan’s history suggests that concentration creates stability only while the person at the centre can deliver it. Ayub failed. Zia died in office. Musharraf eventually lost power and faced prosecution.

  The 27th Amendment is an attempt to ensure that the third part of that story does not happen again.

  But while a Constitution can protect a general from the courts, it cannot guarantee that the political system around him will survive unchanged.

  Pakistan has tried before to make military power permanent. So far, history has had other ideas.