The Foreign Office stressed that the amendment was passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament after following all constitutional procedures. It underlined that Pakistan remains fully committed to safeguarding human rights, human dignity, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Saifullah Ansar

ISLAMABAD, NOV 30 /DNA/ – Pakistan on Saturday strongly rejected what it called a “baseless and misguided” statement issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) regarding the recently adopted 27th Constitutional Amendment.

In a sharply worded response, the Foreign Office said Pakistan viewed with “deep concern” the ungrounded and misplaced apprehensions expressed on behalf of the High Commissioner, emphasizing that constitutional matters fall strictly within the purview of Pakistan’s elected representatives.

“Like all parliamentary democracies, all legislation as well as any amendment to the Constitution remain the exclusive domain of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan,” the statement said. “Democracy and democratic methods form the bedrock of civil and political rights, and therefore must be respected.”

The Foreign Office stressed that the amendment was passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament after following all constitutional procedures. It underlined that Pakistan remains fully committed to safeguarding human rights, human dignity, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

While acknowledging the importance Pakistan attaches to the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the statement expressed regret that “Pakistan’s views and ground realities were not reflected” in the OHCHR’s remarks.

Islamabad urged the High Commissioner to show respect for Pakistan’s sovereign parliamentary decisions and to refrain from issuing comments that “reflect political bias and misinformation.”

The government maintained that external commentary on purely domestic constitutional processes is unwarranted and does not contribute to constructive engagement.