Amending anti-terror laws — then what?

Pakistan has no shortage of good legislation, but it has a chronic problem with its enforcement.


Editorial September 19, 2013
Broadening the footprint of the act to encompass target killers, extortionists and kidnappers must not be seen as a conduit for extra-judicial activity but more as an adjunct, a force-multiplier, for the rule of law.

Pakistan has no shortage of good legislation, but it has a chronic problem with its enforcement, be it in respect of taxation, motorcycle helmets or terrorism, and laws are widely flouted, ignored or abused. The proposals to revise anti-terrorism legislation by a range of administrative and legal measures therefore get a cautious welcome. Given the parlous state of the security climate anything that improves the lot and the safety of the general public is to be welcomed, equally anything that sees more terrorists and criminals caught, prosecuted and most importantly convicted. Amending the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to allow the security forces to ‘use force’ to prevent a terrorist act even if they have not been fired upon must not be interpreted as a ‘licence to kill’ by them. Similarly, broadening the footprint of the act to encompass target killers, extortionists and kidnappers must not be seen as a conduit for extra-judicial activity but more as an adjunct, a force-multiplier, for the rule of law.



The forces of law and order also need the tools for the job, and if the job is to be redefined then there is a need for additional training as well as the equipment and technical services that back up successful law enforcement. The gathering and preservation of evidence, the taking of timely accurate statements, forensic laboratories that are able to provide definitive science-based evidence rather than a reliance on human witnesses who are so often corrupted or intimidated, and the decoupling of the police from the political bandwagon will all contribute to a greater public safety. Cases are often thrown out of the courts because of poor police work and merely extending the time suspects can be held in custody to three months rather than the current 30 days is no guarantee of the accused being successfully prosecuted — but improving police procedural increases the chances considerably. By all means amend legislation to improve the quality of life for everybody, but at the same time invest in improving the quality of those whose job it is to enforce the law because otherwise, the amendments become little more than yet another paper exercise, more cosmetic than game-changing.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20th, 2013.

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

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ