More misconceptions about the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance
The PPO is exclusively geared to protect the state, the state machinery, the armed forces and state infrastructure.
The writer is a lawyer and a Fulbright Scholar currently pursuing an LLM degree in International Human Rights from the University of Notre Dame
Barrister Ali Zafar suggested in his article in this publication on April 25, 2014, titled “Misconceptions about the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance”, that the only thing wrong with the aforementioned law was its name. He suggested that it should instead be named the ‘Protection of Pakistan’s Citizens Act’. Barrister Zafar seems to imply that the law is, in fact, a mechanism to protect and preserve the interests of the citizens of Pakistan as opposed to the state machinery of Pakistan.
It is surprising then, that upon a review of the list of scheduled offences in the law, I was unable to point to a single scheduled offence that directly protects the ordinary citizen. The laws are exclusively geared to protect the state, the state machinery, the armed forces and state infrastructure. Some might point out here that I am ignoring the provisions relating to offences such as killing, kidnapping, extortion and assault of individuals. However, it must be noted, that these protections do not apply to the ordinary citizen. These protections of the law are restricted to those categories that are exclusively considered worthy. They apply to a select few, like parliamentarians, judges, armed forces officers and ‘other important personalities’. One wonders what it takes to qualify as an ‘important personality’ in Pakistan. Surely, it does not include the impoverished Baloch, internally displaced persons, dissidents of any sort, members of worker unions or those residing in informal slums in Islamabad.
Those supporting this law, deal in absolutes. If you do not fall in line and support this law without reservation, you are automatically considered to be a part of the problem. Such absolutes are unacceptable and rely on the politics of fear. The spirit of democracy calls for debate, discussion and dissent. Such absolutes are eerily reminiscent of President George W Bush’s 2001 ultimatum “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.
Advocates of this law also point to similar laws in other countries, like the Patriot Act of the United States. Such advocates fail to appreciate that the Patriot Act has come under a great deal of criticism in the United States (US) and has largely been seen as a failed instrument in the war against terror. In fact, the law has been subject to abuse by the government to spy on its citizens and has not had a significant impact on the war on terror.
In a 2009 report titled “Reclaiming Patriotism”, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted that more than seven years after its implementation, there was little evidence to show that the Patriot Act has made the US more secure from terrorists. On the contrary, the ACLU noted there were many examples of government abuses of these discretionary powers in ways that violated the rights of innocent people and wasted precious security resources. The US may be taken as a good example in several aspects, but legislative restraint and its enforcement of civil liberties is not one of them.
A more disturbing proposition put forward by advocates of the law is that it may, indeed, be violating human rights, but is a political necessity. Such advocates suggest that political differences should be put aside and the law should be unanimously supported because the prevailing circumstances require dire steps. Once again, the politics of fear are at work to equip the state machinery with vast discretionary powers of arrest and detention.
Supporters of this law also seem to ignore the very real possibility of abuse of this law. The laws of blasphemy have been used in many documented cases to settle personal scores and have been abused by many with the connivance of the law-enforcement agencies. A law like the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO) is very foreseeably open to abuse. The law, among other things, empowers law-enforcement agencies and armed forces to open fire upon suspects committing offences or those who are likely to commit an offence under the law. One of the civil armed forces that the law applies to is the Pakistan Rangers, who have a history of, in some cases, firing prematurely on suspects like Sarfaraz Shah in Karachi. The same law will also apply to the military operating in Balochistan, where there have been similar reports of trigger-happy incidents. The PPO will provide these forces with a legal cover for such behaviour, which is a clear contravention of well-established human rights principles.
A fair critique of the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance does not imply there is no need to review the security framework of Pakistan. The failure of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 has taught us many valuable lessons. The issue is not one of just the legislative framework. The high acquittal rates under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 were mostly attributed to factors like insufficient evidence, apprehension of witnesses to testify and intimidation of judges hearing the cases. The PPO does make somewhat reasonable steps to address these issues, but couples them with flagrant violations of basic human rights.
The government and the parliament must address a host of other issues to alleviate the security situation. The PPO appears to be shortcut method to address a complex and intricate situation. One does not need to be a skilled lawyer to realise that the law and the list of scheduled offences are poorly prepared and leave wide room for interpretation and abuse. The law includes offences as bizarre as ‘crimes against computers’ and offences ‘transcending or crossing national boundaries’ without clarifying what any of these entail. Do we really want to live in a country where ‘computers’ are protected more zealously than the basic human rights of citizens?
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2014.
It is surprising then, that upon a review of the list of scheduled offences in the law, I was unable to point to a single scheduled offence that directly protects the ordinary citizen. The laws are exclusively geared to protect the state, the state machinery, the armed forces and state infrastructure. Some might point out here that I am ignoring the provisions relating to offences such as killing, kidnapping, extortion and assault of individuals. However, it must be noted, that these protections do not apply to the ordinary citizen. These protections of the law are restricted to those categories that are exclusively considered worthy. They apply to a select few, like parliamentarians, judges, armed forces officers and ‘other important personalities’. One wonders what it takes to qualify as an ‘important personality’ in Pakistan. Surely, it does not include the impoverished Baloch, internally displaced persons, dissidents of any sort, members of worker unions or those residing in informal slums in Islamabad.
Those supporting this law, deal in absolutes. If you do not fall in line and support this law without reservation, you are automatically considered to be a part of the problem. Such absolutes are unacceptable and rely on the politics of fear. The spirit of democracy calls for debate, discussion and dissent. Such absolutes are eerily reminiscent of President George W Bush’s 2001 ultimatum “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.
Advocates of this law also point to similar laws in other countries, like the Patriot Act of the United States. Such advocates fail to appreciate that the Patriot Act has come under a great deal of criticism in the United States (US) and has largely been seen as a failed instrument in the war against terror. In fact, the law has been subject to abuse by the government to spy on its citizens and has not had a significant impact on the war on terror.
In a 2009 report titled “Reclaiming Patriotism”, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted that more than seven years after its implementation, there was little evidence to show that the Patriot Act has made the US more secure from terrorists. On the contrary, the ACLU noted there were many examples of government abuses of these discretionary powers in ways that violated the rights of innocent people and wasted precious security resources. The US may be taken as a good example in several aspects, but legislative restraint and its enforcement of civil liberties is not one of them.
A more disturbing proposition put forward by advocates of the law is that it may, indeed, be violating human rights, but is a political necessity. Such advocates suggest that political differences should be put aside and the law should be unanimously supported because the prevailing circumstances require dire steps. Once again, the politics of fear are at work to equip the state machinery with vast discretionary powers of arrest and detention.
Supporters of this law also seem to ignore the very real possibility of abuse of this law. The laws of blasphemy have been used in many documented cases to settle personal scores and have been abused by many with the connivance of the law-enforcement agencies. A law like the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO) is very foreseeably open to abuse. The law, among other things, empowers law-enforcement agencies and armed forces to open fire upon suspects committing offences or those who are likely to commit an offence under the law. One of the civil armed forces that the law applies to is the Pakistan Rangers, who have a history of, in some cases, firing prematurely on suspects like Sarfaraz Shah in Karachi. The same law will also apply to the military operating in Balochistan, where there have been similar reports of trigger-happy incidents. The PPO will provide these forces with a legal cover for such behaviour, which is a clear contravention of well-established human rights principles.
A fair critique of the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance does not imply there is no need to review the security framework of Pakistan. The failure of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 has taught us many valuable lessons. The issue is not one of just the legislative framework. The high acquittal rates under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 were mostly attributed to factors like insufficient evidence, apprehension of witnesses to testify and intimidation of judges hearing the cases. The PPO does make somewhat reasonable steps to address these issues, but couples them with flagrant violations of basic human rights.
The government and the parliament must address a host of other issues to alleviate the security situation. The PPO appears to be shortcut method to address a complex and intricate situation. One does not need to be a skilled lawyer to realise that the law and the list of scheduled offences are poorly prepared and leave wide room for interpretation and abuse. The law includes offences as bizarre as ‘crimes against computers’ and offences ‘transcending or crossing national boundaries’ without clarifying what any of these entail. Do we really want to live in a country where ‘computers’ are protected more zealously than the basic human rights of citizens?
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2014.