Legal voices split over proposed International Commercial Court of Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: A proposal to create an International Commercial Court of Pakistan through a constitutional amendment has drawn sharply different reactions from lawyers, former judges and public figures, with critics questioning its timing and institutional basis while supporters describe it as a needed reform for commercial dispute resolution.

Former Supreme Court judge Mansoor Ali Shah said that the proposed court could not become a credible venue for global commerce unless confidence in the rule of law, judicial independence and constitutional governance was first restored in Pakistan. He said that without those foundations, the move risked being seen as a cosmetic step rather than a substantive reform.

Justice Shah said the announcement lacked key details, including the court’s jurisdiction, composition, appellate structure, procedural framework, relationship with arbitration and whether international judges would be appointed. He said these missing elements made a meaningful evaluation impossible. He also argued that international commercial courts gain credibility not merely from constitutional or legal changes, but from the wider legal environment in which they operate.

Attributing investor behaviour to institutional confidence, he said investors look at judicial independence, legal certainty, contract enforcement, respect for arbitral awards and protection from executive interference.

Justice Shah cited Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Qatar as examples often presented as successful models, saying they had deliberately developed commercial justice systems that inspired international trust. He said those jurisdictions had not faced perceptions that their commercial courts were institutionally captured or staffed by judges lacking independence, and that this commitment to the commercial rule of law underpinned investor confidence.

He contrasted that with Pakistan’s existing framework, saying the country still relies on the Arbitration Act, 1940, which he described as based on extensive judicial intervention rather than modern arbitration principles. He added that confidence in any commercial court ultimately depended on confidence in the judiciary as a whole, and that a specialised forum could not make up for wider doubts over judicial independence.

Criticism over priorities and structure

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan questioned why the court was focusing on such proposals when, he said, the constitutionality of historically regressive amendments had remained unaddressed for years. He said the development reflected what he described as a new language of rights centred on technology, digitisation and commerce even as severe sentences were being handed down to lawyers including Imaan Mazari and Hadi Chattha.

Former federal minister Fawad Chaudhry, who is also an advocate, said expanding structures through additional bureaucracy or new courts did not address what he called a deeper crisis of institutional legitimacy. He said the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments had contributed to a decline in judicial credibility and argued that the way forward lay in broad structural reform based on merit and public accountability.

Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii also criticised the proposal, saying Pakistani businesses generally try to keep disputes outside the country’s legal system, making the idea of an international commercial court difficult to take seriously. He said Pakistan had repeatedly tried to create exceptions in the name of expediency, pointing to terrorism courts, banking courts, drug courts and, more recently, the constitutional court.

Jaferii said it would be better to improve judicial performance across the regular court system rather than carving out another exception to delays and complaints of incompetence. He further questioned why judges were proposing laws, saying their constitutional role was to interpret legislation and decide cases rather than advise parliament.

Support for specialised commercial justice

Lawyer Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar supported the proposal and described it as a landmark constitutional and judicial reform needed to strengthen Pakistan’s commercial justice system and support sustainable economic growth. He said specialised commercial courts had become a defining feature of successful economies.

Khokhar referred to the Singapore International Commercial Court, the United Kingdom’s Business and Property Courts, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts and the Delaware Court of Chancery in the United States as internationally recognised models. He said such institutions had improved commercial dispute resolution by offering specialist judges, quick procedures, predictable outcomes and judgments respected internationally, which in turn strengthened investor confidence and attracted foreign investment.

According to Khokhar, Pakistan should adopt a comparable institutional model to meet the demands of international commerce and cross-border investment. He said the proposed Federal Commercial Court should have exclusive jurisdiction over high-value commercial disputes, international commercial contracts, foreign investment disputes, cross-border trade and business transactions, banking and finance matters, corporate and shareholder disputes, mergers and acquisitions, infrastructure and energy projects, public-private partnerships, insurance and reinsurance, insolvency and restructuring, shipping and maritime claims, intellectual property, electronic commerce, competition law, and arbitration-related matters including the recognition and enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards.