Time to review detention laws
IT has been two years since parliament passed an amendment to the Anti Terrorism Act of 1997 that vested extraordinary powers in the Rangers in Sindh to detain people on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, or of facilitating terrorism.
The amendment is called Section 11EEEE, and it was passed to put some teeth into the Karachi operation that had begun only a few weeks earlier.
Since then, the amendment has been used widely to detain all manner of people, from members of political parties to extortionist gangs and individuals belonging to banned outfits, as well as officers of a state-owned gas company.
Originally, the Rangers were the sole agency vested with the powers under this extraordinary amendment, but as of this summer, the Counter Terrorism Department of Sindh Police and the FIA have also been notified to exercise the same extraordinary powers of detention contained in this law.
The powers empower the notified law-enforcement agency to detain for up to 90 days on ground of suspicion alone, and without any judicial oversight.
Dr Asim Hussain is probably the most high-profile individual detained under this law, and the scope and depth of the investigation carried out against him is quite possibly unprecedented.
But the charges levelled against him in the FIR contain no reference to terror financing, showing that whatever else he might be guilty of, not a shred of evidence appears to have been found implicating him in the original charge under which he was detained.
The case — and many other cases that have a similar pattern — illustrates the dire need for a review of Section 11EEEE of the ATA to ensure that the extraordinary powers granted to law enforcement through it are not being misused.
Thus far no data exists of the number of people detained under this law, yet we know from observing court activity that most of those detained are either released without any charges, or are charged with criminal activity that has little or nothing to do with terrorism.
This apparent pattern makes it important to conduct a review of how well this law has served to advance the fight against terrorism and militancy specifically, for which it was designed.
The review should aim to provide us with answers to three specific questions: how many people have been detained under this law thus far?
How many of them have been charged with an offence? And how many convictions have been obtained?
If the federal government proves reticent in initiating such a review, an MNA should raise these questions as part of question hour in the National Assembly and demand a response from the government.
It is crucial to determine whether the tools designed to fight militancy and terrorism are not being used for purposes other than those they were specifically meant for.
Grounds for change
THE build-up to change seems to have intensified. Away from Pakistan’s own little experiments with various formats of the game, international cricket is currently facing an onslaught of new ideas.
At one place, the debate is about doing away with the toss at the outset of a match and letting home teams decide whether they want to bowl or bat first.
At the same time, the proposal for four-day Test matches has been revived with some seriousness against the backdrop of quick finishes such as the one in Nagpur last week in which India defeated South Africa inside three days.
And if this were not a repulsive enough idea for the leisurely gentleman in white flannels, he is left to frown upon the first-ever day-night Test where he is made to chase an unfamiliar pink ball that cannot, to the conventional mind, ever rival the feel and shine of the old cherry.
Some protest at the death of values and tradition — before the incorrigibly hooked find new ways to reconcile with the new, more instantaneously gratifying offerings inside a cricket field.
On the other hand, there are discussions about the variety available to connoisseurs of the game and to the excited, non-traditional fans. In reality, however, this debate about changes is a realistic reminder that the look of the game may change sooner than anticipated in the past.
Just as Pakistan tries — quite unsuccessfully at the moment — to be equally competitive in all formats of cricket, it can be said that some of the old varieties of the game are being nudged onto the fast lane towards their eventual exit.
It’s been a few years since those who proudly stood by the five-day Test were asked to turn up in considerable numbers at the stadium in order to save their favourite format from becoming obsolete.
The response to that warning has been patchy and popular attention appears to be turning towards the faster versions on the market.
So much so that on occasion even the 50-over-a-side brand tie is considered too laborious and time-consuming when an outcome and plenty of revenue can be had from a contest lasting 40 overs. The countdown continues.
A country can have three different teams playing three different formats — Tests, one-dayers and T-20 games.
The game cannot quite continue to have enough spectators for all three categories to prosper.
Filthy nation
THE disastrous state of affairs that prevails in many sectors in Pakistan is frequently commented on.
The one that citizens and administrations both seem to have become inured to, however, is also the most easily discernible: the abysmal state of the civic apparatus in most cities and towns, the filth that lines our roads, and the rapidly falling standards of the ecology and environment.
The problems have become so big, and so entrenched, that the highest court of the land is diverting its attention to them.
Taking up a case relating to pollution and environmental degradation in Islamabad on Wednesday, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court rhetorically asked whether it should have to intervene all the time to keep Karachi clean.
Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that it was difficult to imagine how people were living in some of the smaller towns and cities, adding that there were armies of employees in the departments concerned, who were drawing salaries but sitting idle.
The judges’ comments, acerbic in the extreme, showed the level of their frustration; and, indeed, this must be shared by the vast majority of people who must breathe air that is toxic, drink water that is contaminated and undertake commutes surrounded by piles of burning garbage — all because, as the Supreme Court noted with reference to the polluting industries in our cities, “until it suits them the government turns a blind eye towards the big fish”.
Pakistan must urgently rationalise and strategise in this regard. The answers are simple to formulate; what is needed is strong political will and action on the part of the civic agencies.
Why is Islamabad, for example, a notable exception in terms of the quality of the environment and the relative success in enforcing land-use rules?
The grim truth is that those who are in positions to initiate effective clean-up drives and formulate strong policies are the ones who never walk the city streets. Here too, it is the disconnect between the public and their elected representatives that is at fault.
Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 29th, 2015