Why talk to criminals?
Govt must seriously consider consequences of negotiating with criminals.
The writer is a lawyer based in Karachi
The decision by the government to continue talks with the TTP seems beyond bizarre, particularly due to continual terrorist attacks amidst the ‘peace talks’ initiated earlier this year. After a fatal attack in February 2014 on our armed forces by the TTP, our interior minister issued a statement of condemnation while stating that talks with the TTP would be halted as it would be an injustice to all persons killed in these attacks. He also assured that Islamabad was a ‘safe city’.
Subsequently, the government attacked Taliban-controlled areas, pushing them on the back foot and leading them to request for continuation of ‘peace talks’. The government obliged. A mere fortnight later, the Islamabad kutchery catastrophe occurred. How did the TTP respond? By saying it was not them but some splinter group which claimed responsibility. How did the government respond? By slapping the TTP on the wrists and saying this was not acceptable, but continuing with the ‘peace talks’. Weeks after that came the Islamabad Sabzi Mandi blast, which the TTP distanced itself from yet again.
Bloodshed at a time of peace is not a positive sign: this is something the government should have picked up on from the onset. If the TTP is unable to control splinter groups, then it doesn’t have the requisite power to ensure ‘peace’ in the ‘peace zone’ that it seeks. If it wilfully does not control splinter groups, then it is merely toying with the government that is beginning to look like an overprotective parent seeing no wrong committed by its child, accepting every laughable excuse given by the TTP. As the TTP continues with terror attacks the government keeps relenting and continues the ‘peace talks’.
Since 2001, the Taliban have killed staggering numbers of our soldiers, men, women and children. They continually challenge the writ of the state, reject the Constitution of Pakistan and have demanded the release of their prisoners who have committed the most heinous of crimes against the state. They are repeatedly exploiting our Constitution (Articles 2, 2-A, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 25 and 256 to name a few) and violating fundamental rights. Since the government is not empowered to condone such violations, under what authority is the government conducting these talks? Would this not be tantamount to abetting high treason?
High treason is defined under Article 6 of the Constitution which reads: ‘Any person …. [who] attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason….Any person aiding or abetting (or collaborating) the acts mentioned….shall likewise be guilty of high treason’. Moreover, under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973, the punishment for high treason must be ‘death’ or ‘life imprisonment’ — there is no other option.
Based on logic and law, the TTP appears guilty of high treason. The government, by entering into talks with the TTP, is in fact negotiating with criminals, an act which may be construed as ‘abetting’ high treason, rendering the government itself in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the courts are not empowered to validate high treason (as per the Constitution) and therefore, the government must seriously consider the consequences of their actions. With no legal cover available, can the government, through its ‘peace talks’ with criminals, legitimise constitutional violations? And if not, then what is the consequence for attempting the same? There may soon be a knock on the door of the judiciary requesting the answer(s).
Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2014.
Subsequently, the government attacked Taliban-controlled areas, pushing them on the back foot and leading them to request for continuation of ‘peace talks’. The government obliged. A mere fortnight later, the Islamabad kutchery catastrophe occurred. How did the TTP respond? By saying it was not them but some splinter group which claimed responsibility. How did the government respond? By slapping the TTP on the wrists and saying this was not acceptable, but continuing with the ‘peace talks’. Weeks after that came the Islamabad Sabzi Mandi blast, which the TTP distanced itself from yet again.
Bloodshed at a time of peace is not a positive sign: this is something the government should have picked up on from the onset. If the TTP is unable to control splinter groups, then it doesn’t have the requisite power to ensure ‘peace’ in the ‘peace zone’ that it seeks. If it wilfully does not control splinter groups, then it is merely toying with the government that is beginning to look like an overprotective parent seeing no wrong committed by its child, accepting every laughable excuse given by the TTP. As the TTP continues with terror attacks the government keeps relenting and continues the ‘peace talks’.
Since 2001, the Taliban have killed staggering numbers of our soldiers, men, women and children. They continually challenge the writ of the state, reject the Constitution of Pakistan and have demanded the release of their prisoners who have committed the most heinous of crimes against the state. They are repeatedly exploiting our Constitution (Articles 2, 2-A, 6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 25 and 256 to name a few) and violating fundamental rights. Since the government is not empowered to condone such violations, under what authority is the government conducting these talks? Would this not be tantamount to abetting high treason?
High treason is defined under Article 6 of the Constitution which reads: ‘Any person …. [who] attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason….Any person aiding or abetting (or collaborating) the acts mentioned….shall likewise be guilty of high treason’. Moreover, under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973, the punishment for high treason must be ‘death’ or ‘life imprisonment’ — there is no other option.
Based on logic and law, the TTP appears guilty of high treason. The government, by entering into talks with the TTP, is in fact negotiating with criminals, an act which may be construed as ‘abetting’ high treason, rendering the government itself in violation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the courts are not empowered to validate high treason (as per the Constitution) and therefore, the government must seriously consider the consequences of their actions. With no legal cover available, can the government, through its ‘peace talks’ with criminals, legitimise constitutional violations? And if not, then what is the consequence for attempting the same? There may soon be a knock on the door of the judiciary requesting the answer(s).
Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2014.