Missing persons
Everyone is aware of the security difficulties in Pakistan, state institutions must function under restraints.
Athree-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Javed Iqbal has directed all four provincial chiefs of police to submit reports on the recovery of missing persons. Justice Javed Iqbal spoke about the necessity of having a legislation that would bind the state agency to clearer restrictions on their remit of picking up people and making them disappear. He pointed to the honourable Supreme Court’s irreducible duty to take account of the tendency of the agencies to illegally detain a person.
No matter what any ‘national security’ oriented person may say, the state must abide by the tenet of respecting the right of the individual citizen, and the Supreme Court is on the right track, ensuring this cardinal principle of the Constitution, no matter how slow the administrative machinery grinds in this respect. Made conscious of this, Additional Attorney General KK Agha has assured the bench that “intelligence agencies have been directed to stop the abduction of citizens”. We know from past hearings that the honourable Court is hardly satisfied by such reassurances. It will get an authentic glimpse into the matter when the two-member Commission on missing persons submits its report within 45 days of “the conclusion of the joint investigation of the commission and intelligence agencies along with a provincial task force report on the subject”.
The honourable Court has asked some probing questions: Can any organisation detain a person for more than 60 days? And why is the government silent over the dead bodies surfacing in Balochistan, Swat, Fata and other areas? These are questions that must continue to be asked if Pakistan is to remain united and all its regions are to feel integrated with it. Everyone is aware of the nature of strategic and security difficulties that Pakistan is faced with. There is a tendency to overlook the hard action taken by the state agencies under these conditions, but this tendency is dangerous for the durability of the system under which the state functions. At all times, state institutions must be made to remember that they have to function under restraints.
Justice Javed Iqbal drove this point home when he declared that the situation in Balochistan and Karachi “must be taken into consideration and steps be taken to resolve the issues”. He took note of the list of 32 newly missing persons submitted by Defence of Human Rights Chairperson Amina Masood Janjua and brought up the matter of the Lal Masjid missing persons as well. Once again, one must remind oneself of the due process which is being emphasised by the honourable Court. It does not matter what real information is available about terrorist activity in Balochistan and in the case of Lal Masjid. What matters is that the state must continue to function under law. There is wisdom in this, even though it might escape some persons in the current moment of stress. It is a significant achievement of this Court that the Pakistan Army, too, has submitted to its activism about the missing persons inside Pakistan, the ‘battlefield syndrome’ notwithstanding.
We all need to stand behind the Supreme Court in this hour of duress. On the one hand, we must recognise the urgency of facing up to terrorism and taking firm action against individuals serving the ends of terror; on the other, we must remain vigilant about the ‘legality’ of executive action taken against those accused of abetting or indulging in terrorism. One of the reasons why some real terrorists have to be released by the courts — apart from the well-known element of arousal of fear through threats — is that the process of law has not been carefully observed by the state agencies. In the eyes of the Court, it is not enough to act against terrorism; it is perhaps more important for the survival of the state in the long run to act legally and under the restraint of due process. However, if the parliament feels that certain special regulations have to be introduced to counter the special law and order conditions created by the terrorists, it can legislate accordingly without breaching any basic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 4th, 2011.
No matter what any ‘national security’ oriented person may say, the state must abide by the tenet of respecting the right of the individual citizen, and the Supreme Court is on the right track, ensuring this cardinal principle of the Constitution, no matter how slow the administrative machinery grinds in this respect. Made conscious of this, Additional Attorney General KK Agha has assured the bench that “intelligence agencies have been directed to stop the abduction of citizens”. We know from past hearings that the honourable Court is hardly satisfied by such reassurances. It will get an authentic glimpse into the matter when the two-member Commission on missing persons submits its report within 45 days of “the conclusion of the joint investigation of the commission and intelligence agencies along with a provincial task force report on the subject”.
The honourable Court has asked some probing questions: Can any organisation detain a person for more than 60 days? And why is the government silent over the dead bodies surfacing in Balochistan, Swat, Fata and other areas? These are questions that must continue to be asked if Pakistan is to remain united and all its regions are to feel integrated with it. Everyone is aware of the nature of strategic and security difficulties that Pakistan is faced with. There is a tendency to overlook the hard action taken by the state agencies under these conditions, but this tendency is dangerous for the durability of the system under which the state functions. At all times, state institutions must be made to remember that they have to function under restraints.
Justice Javed Iqbal drove this point home when he declared that the situation in Balochistan and Karachi “must be taken into consideration and steps be taken to resolve the issues”. He took note of the list of 32 newly missing persons submitted by Defence of Human Rights Chairperson Amina Masood Janjua and brought up the matter of the Lal Masjid missing persons as well. Once again, one must remind oneself of the due process which is being emphasised by the honourable Court. It does not matter what real information is available about terrorist activity in Balochistan and in the case of Lal Masjid. What matters is that the state must continue to function under law. There is wisdom in this, even though it might escape some persons in the current moment of stress. It is a significant achievement of this Court that the Pakistan Army, too, has submitted to its activism about the missing persons inside Pakistan, the ‘battlefield syndrome’ notwithstanding.
We all need to stand behind the Supreme Court in this hour of duress. On the one hand, we must recognise the urgency of facing up to terrorism and taking firm action against individuals serving the ends of terror; on the other, we must remain vigilant about the ‘legality’ of executive action taken against those accused of abetting or indulging in terrorism. One of the reasons why some real terrorists have to be released by the courts — apart from the well-known element of arousal of fear through threats — is that the process of law has not been carefully observed by the state agencies. In the eyes of the Court, it is not enough to act against terrorism; it is perhaps more important for the survival of the state in the long run to act legally and under the restraint of due process. However, if the parliament feels that certain special regulations have to be introduced to counter the special law and order conditions created by the terrorists, it can legislate accordingly without breaching any basic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 4th, 2011.