ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has announced the party’s conditional support for the government’s constitutional amendment plan, backing proposed changes to Article 243 while drawing a firm red line on any alterations to the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award.
Following a key party meeting, the former foreign minister confirmed the PPP would support amendments concerning the military’s command structure under Article 243, noting these changes had received necessary approvals. However, he emphatically stated the party would “oppose any changes to the NFC formula,” which determines provincial revenue shares.
The announcement positions the PPP as both a collaborator and critic in the constitutional reform process, supporting military command restructuring while protecting provincial financial interests. Bilawal’s statement highlights the delicate balance required to navigate the politically sensitive amendment process.
Additionally, the PPP chairman revealed ongoing discussions about establishing a constitutional court, proposing equal representation from all four provinces on the bench. A final decision on this matter is expected after the party’s Central Executive Committee meeting scheduled for later today.
The Federal Cabinet is expected to review the draft of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, with sources indicating a briefing on the proposed changes will precede any decision on their approval. The PPP’s conditional support signals potential challenges ahead for the government’s constitutional agenda.
Pakistan’s proposed 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked heated debate across political and media circles, with critics calling it a “power grab” and supporters framing it as a long-overdue institutional reform. Amid speculation and political noise, the following key facts separate perception from policy — clarifying what the amendment actually seeks to change, and what it does not.
Myth 1: “It’s a power grab by the establishment.”
Fact: The amendment focuses on institutional efficiency, not control. It proposes a Constitutional Court to handle constitutional disputes quickly, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on appeals and legal precedents.
