The Punjab government’s vision to extend a robust agency, the Counter Terrorism Department (CCD), aimed at mitigating criminal activities, sounds promising. However, recent data shows a comparative study of combating crime in a fragile way. The CCD, created earlier this year, aimed to counter gang mafias, drug trafficking and other illicit activities in Punjab province. While the idea was good, its ramifications are worsening fairness and the rule of law, often referred to as selective accountability.
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, over 670 people have been killed in 500 alleged encounters in Punjab since January 2025, many under CCD supervision. These figures highlight the law’s overpassing role in dismantling crime, with operations not within legal parameters but rather politically motivated. When the system erodes and does not follow prescribed limits, the law remains ambiguous, filling the mere approach of constitutional statutes with uncertainty.
The law grants individuals the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A; why does the government choose another approach to tackle peace? As a lawyer, we feel the ephemeral process emboldens the audience but leaves a loophole for rational scrutiny. Due process is a life-saving opportunity for the accused, a boon. The CM Punjab’s “Zero Crime” statement felt motivational but illusive for a civilised society. Crime vanishes only with good governance in action.
A government whose legitimacy questioned by dissent is not proactive government; it’s a ruling faction with force, not with durable mandate. Institutional excellence is judged through transparency, accountability and operating mechanisms, not expeditious triumph.
If the government had made the CCD a public-favoured approach to lasting peace in society, it would have seen as positive step, not a ruthless tool for deciding justice.
Mohsin Yaseen
Lahore
