Is the Maintenance Public Order a draconian law?

In recent times, one law that has become the highlight of today’s news is the Maintenance Public Order Ordinance (MPO). While tracing its origins back to the British colonial era, this law was formally introduced in Pakistan during General Ayub Khan’s regime. The MPO, designed to override standard legal procedures and due process, provides the government and law enforcement agencies with extensive powers to maintain public order and address perceived threats to the state.

While the intentions behind such legislations are often justified in the name of “national security” and “public safety”, the broad and vaguely worded MPO’s unbridled power to the government to “arrest and detain suspected persons” makes it crucial to examine the implications of this ordinance on the fundamental rights of citizens. The legal consensus thus questions whether the bare foundation of the law completely disregards the constitutional rights of citizens of this country.

On the face of it, MPO unmistakably restricts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, a right well-guarded by Article 19 of the Constitution. The ordinance is designed with such vague wording that it provides broad powers to the authorities to suppress any speech or expression that they deem likely to disturb public order or incite violence. It seems that the purpose behind the use of this ambiguous language is to allow for subjective interpretation to trigger the restriction of “public order” provided under Article 19, leading to the suppression of dissenting voices and the curtailment of the right to express opinions freely.

Interestingly, the ordinance doesn’t just stop there; Section 16 even covers dissemination of rumours “by signs or by visible or audible representations”. What amounts to “signs or by visible representation” is a question conveniently left unanswered in this law. However, this open language and lack of definitions is what has led to even a tweet or social media post triggering an arrest under the MPO.

The ordinance extends further to confer powers upon authorities to enter and search premises without a warrant if deemed necessary for the maintenance of public order. This again can be seen as a clear contravention to the fundamental right of privacy enshrined not just in our Constitution but also in various international human rights instruments. The intrusion into people’s privacy without appropriate safeguards undoubtedly infringes upon their constitutionally protected right to privacy, which encompasses the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with one's personal life, home and correspondence. Specifically, it is the absence of a requirement for obtaining a warrant that is undermining the fundamental principles of proportionality, necessity and legality that govern the protection of individual rights.

By granting authorities the power to enter and search premises without a warrant, the MPO has not only exposed people to undue surveillance but has also opened the door to potential abuse of power. And that is exactly what we have seen time and again with the use of this law by the government or other agencies. The absence of a prior judicial determination regarding the necessity and legality of the search is what has led to houses being ransacked in the wee hours of the night by undisclosed individuals and people being dragged from their homes without any explanation.

This inevitably raises concerns about the arbitrary exercise of authority and exacerbates the potential for abuse. The ordinance's broad and subjective language is adding fuel to the fire by providing authorities with wide discretion, allowing for the possibility of discriminatory targeting, political persecution, or intimidation of individuals who hold dissenting opinions or engage in lawful activities protected by the Constitution.

The unbridled law of the MPO thus becomes a prime example of a draconian law. Its oppressive and authoritarian nature is disproportionately infringing upon the rights and freedom of people; the basic rights that are provided and protected in every democratic society. The veracity of the law is that the ordinance is employing broad and vague language in order to grant sweeping powers to the government and law enforcement agencies. The lack of clear and precise definitions and criteria seem to solely be there to undermine legal certainty in the country in order to make tyrant arrests justifiable in the eye of the law. One hallmark characteristic of a draconian law adopted by the MPO is its propensity to suppress dissent and stifle political opposition, and so it continues to be used as a tool to quell dissenting voices, curtail peaceful protests, and suppress political rallies and demonstrations.

At a time when the world is moving towards progress in democracy and protecting civil liberties, our continuous use of the MPO, as it stands today, is unsuitable for the modern age of democracy and human rights. The powers granted under the ordinance are blatantly disproportionate to the objective of maintaining public order. Instead, these powers are being used for politically motivated purposes to demolish the right of freedom of speech, liberty and privacy. It is, therefore, crucial for Pakistan to reassess this law as this excessive use of force and restrictions is incongruent to our democratic principles and the obligations placed on us by international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Given the international pressure on the country today, there is no doubt that the MPO is undermining our global reputation. Consequently, it becomes imperative that the government revise the MPO to incorporate stringent safeguards, such as requiring judicial authorisation through the issuance of warrants based on reasonable grounds, limiting the scope and circumstances under which warrantless searches may be conducted, and ensuring accountability mechanisms for any violations of privacy rights.

It cannot be denied that the MPO’s draconian nature is hampering the growth of a healthy democracy by limiting the ability of our people to express their grievances and hold the government accountable. If a citizen of a democratic country cannot question its government without fear of losing the protection of their fundamental rights provided by the sacred document that we call the Constitution, then Ziaul Haq’s saying that the Constitution, “is a booklet with twelve or ten pages, I can tear them”, holds bearing even in today’s time.