PPO and its ramifications

PPO could be used in ethnic/minority persecution therefore, it is essential that this black law be seen for what it is

The recent promulgation of the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO) 2013 has sparked great debate and controversy.

Firstly, the PPO was promulgated after parliament went into recess, which in itself shows its ill intent. Article 89 of the Constitution (the power of the president to promulgate ordinances) is for cases of extreme and sudden emergency only (e.g., sudden outbreak of war or a massive epidemic for which desperate instant measures are required) and is not meant to prevent parliament from legislating (that being its primary function). The ‘emergency’ in Pakistan has not arisen instantly but has been a long process — hence, the ordinance is unwarranted.

Why was parliament not summoned by the president under Article 54 of the Constitution for such an important matter? Who advised the president? These questions need to be answered. The purposes for promulgation of this ordinance in such a hurry gives the impression that the government is providing legal cover for its inability to follow directions of the Supreme Court. The PPO has been closely compared with other unfavourable laws such as the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Rowlatt Act of 1919.

The PPO is aimed at combating terrorism and those involved in terrorist activities in or against Pakistan. The first point to consider is how can the government enter into direct negotiations with the very same people whom the law is targeting? This does not seem logical by any stretch of imagination and leaves one to ponder the true reason for the ordinance’s passage.

Under Section six of the PPO, the government may authorise the detention of a person for up to 90 days without any warrant or proper evidence. Moreover, this section directly contradicts Articles 10 and 10-A of the Constitution which provides certain safeguards against arrest and detention. Article 10 provides that even where a person is acting in a manner detrimental to the integrity, security, etc. of Pakistan, the grounds for detention must be communicated to them. It further states that the accused shall be provided the earliest opportunity for a hearing. Article 10-A provides for right to a fair trial. Universally accepted principles of natural justice demand the same.

Section 14 of the PPO has changed an entire accepted legal doctrine, ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’, which translates as: “the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, not he who denies”, shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Presumption of innocence of the accused is a primary consideration in criminal law systems all over the world. This has been overturned by the PPO.

Section three of the PPO permits the various forces to fire upon and arrest any person and enter any premises without a warrant. This violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles eight, nine, 10, 10-A, 14, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

Although common citizens may believe that draconian measures are required for combating terrorism, they must realise the consequences from lack of accountability. Without proper checks and balances, a citizen has no rights whatsoever (which is even worse than few rights) and while the de jure intention of the government may be to tackle terrorism, its actions contradict such an intention. Worse yet, this ordinance could be used in personal enmity and ethnic/minority persecution and it is, therefore, essential that this black law be seen for what it is and not be whitened.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 21^st, 2014.

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