Irfan Siddiqui episode

The shameful episode of arrest and handcuffing of Irfan Siddiqui, a veteran journalist, teacher and former special assistant to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, along with an entrepreneur, Javaid Iqbal, not only stirred the emotions of democracy-loving citizens, but exposed the cavalier attitude of rulers in Pakistan. All analysts, pro- or anti-government, condemned the abhorrent action. Negating human dignity and morality, even the government was not able to defend the act and had to back out. The interior minister was clueless to the extent that he had to publicly state that whosoever ordered this arrest was not a friend, but a foe of the PTI. The public outrage was so strong that the government had no other option but to release Mr Siddiqui.

One was bemused while listening to Firdous Ashiq Awan on the merit of the case. The PM’s special assistant on information and broadcasting tried to justify the registration of the FIR in line with the National Action Plan (NAP), and invoking the “equality of all in the eyes of the law”. Why does not she care about the NAP implementation in the same capital city over encroachment on government land and public parks; presence of hate literature; misuse of loudspeakers to make hate speeches; non-registration of seminaries as well as irregular constructions? When confronted with the fact that the house — that is claimed to have been rented out without informing the area police about the tenants — was not owned by Siddiqui, but his son, Awan came up with the twisted logic that since the son was abroad, his father had appended the signatures of his son. However, the stark reality was that Siddiqui was arrested four days after the signing of the agreement, while 11 days were still left to register it.

What I can recall from my own experience about the implementation of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Rent Restriction (Security) Act of 2014 in the province is that while I personally thought the law to be intrusive and in violation of fundamental rights, the police were quite caring in the implementation of the act so as not to cause indignation among the general public. Even now, the practice is that in case of omission, the police officer concerned informs the landlord and the tenant to fill the form at their earliest. The purpose of the law is preventive in nature, not punitive.

The PM’s special assistant made an unsuccessful attempt to deflect the attention from the violation of civil liberty and our social values. Her assertions only portray the tendency to abuse laws in the NAP’s smokescreen.

In this context, it is not out of place to mention that the purpose of any investigation is to find truth as an essential ingredient of the criminal administration justice system. Under the Criminal Procedure Code and Police Rules, the police have the power to defer an arrest until the investigation is sufficiently completed. Such arrests are made in case there is an apprehension of absconding in heinous offences. The irony in this case was that the police — without ascertaining the truth and throwing all caution to the wind — not only arrested and handcuffed Mr Siddiqui, but asked the magistrate for a physical remand. To add insult to injury, the magistrate (ignoring the arguments and age of the accused) sent Mr Siddiqui on a 14-day judicial remand. The whole action only exposed the malafide nature of the case.

The episode is not to be analysed in mere technical terms but in the perspective of the whole gamut of justice of which protection of the fundamental rights is the pivot. The High Courts and the Supreme Court invoke their inherent jurisdiction whenever a question of fundamental rights is involved, particularly having impact on society at large. Seen in this light, the incident does not appear to be an isolated act but speaks of the mindset of the system based on total annihilation of dissent and subjugation of the voices of dissent. Sporadic off-hooking of TV channels, blackout of public meetings and processions of specific political personalities, arm- twisting, targeting, voice recording, vilification and allegations of treachery are all reflections of a despotic mindset. The art of propaganda is so strong that the truth fades away before falsehood. An atmosphere of George Orwell’s “Animal farm” appears to have been created, a dystopia where the ideal is rejected.

A democratic polity is not supposed to act in this way. All democratic forces need to forge unity in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens. All the pillars of state should ever remain vigilant in protecting the fundamental rights of the people.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 7^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.