An effective terror law at last!
March 15, 2013
RECORDER REPORT
Undoubtedly, of all the challenges confronted by the outgoing government during its five-year tenure the most formidable was terrorism. The countrywide incidence of terrorism remained largely unchecked and woefully uncontrolled; in fact on the other hand it kept spawning as it moved out of its isolated strongholds and over time showed up in urban localities in all its lethal dimensions.
Resultantly, the streets became increasingly insecure, businesses closed down, foreign investment stopped coming and even future of our national existence became a matter of opinion. Not that all this was happening only in headlines and reality was different; it was in full knowledge of the government and its agencies - in fact, terrorism was so overbearing a threat that the forces that were supposed to be curbing and controlling terrorists had taken refuge in bunkers behind high security walls, throwing the ordinary citizenry to the wolves. One would hate to blame this defeatist approach on some kind of perceived cowardice of the rulers; they couldn't put up an equal fight to terrorists because they did not have the jurisdictional wherewithal.
The 1970s vintage anti-terrorism law was just not comprehensive enough to deal with the emerging curse of terrorism and, ironically, there was no serious thinking as well to think out any worthwhile anti-terrorism strategy. While the marauders stalked our streets unchallenged, the authorities could only express sympathy with the hapless victims and promise compensation, which too was often a broken promise. As to why the government couldn't stand up to the terrorist blood hounds, and was it lack of courage and determination, we leave it for the history to give its verdict. But we do know that putting in place an effective anti-terrorism strategy on day one of the present governing dispensation was always possible. Otherwise, how come it hasn't taken more than a day not only to unanimously legislate the crucial Anti-terrorism (Second Amendment) Act, 2013 by the National Assembly and adoption of the National Counter Terrorism Authority Act, 2013 by the Senate? Alas, such a spirit of unanimity didn't prevail in parliament all these months and years when terrorists tore up the very fabric of our national existence.
If the future government would succeed in checking and curbing terrorism we hope it would, given the new enactment which lays down a comprehensive framework encompassing as to what defines a terrorist act, for how long a suspected terrorist can be held in detention and how to deal with entities that conceive, promote and bankroll terrorist activities in Pakistan. Of course, there is ample reason to question and debate the grounds leading to detention of a suspect - the Act says detention can be made for the purposes of investigation on a "reasonable ground", "credible information" or a "reasonable suspicion" about the suspect. One would like to contest these grounds for the possibility of their misuse, but the reality is that there is just no alternative to this, and is an accepted norm all over the world. One of the stated reasons for the inordinate delay in passing a strong anti-terrorism law was the difference between the treasury and the opposition on the period for detention. While the government was for 90-day detention the opposition was for one month.
Now the compromised position is that the detention would be for one month, but extendable to 90 days "for reasons to be recorded". Likewise, the new law also takes care of the proscribed militant organisations that keep functioning under changed rubric. From now on they would stand proscribed; their operatives would be denied foreign travel and receipt of donations. Those illegal FM radio networks, some of which have acquired notoriety of spewing deadly sectarianism in the tribal region, are also banned under the new law. But that said we would not say 'all is well that ends well'. Perhaps, with this anti-terrorism enactment in hand in early days of its reign the outgoing government could have greatly succeeded in containing and controlling terrorism in the country. It could have passed and should have passed this law. That even now the government agreed to pass it as 'a barter' to secure opposition's acquisition not to oppose government's move to provide one-time amnesty to tax evaders, we don't know. But this stringent law against terrorism would greatly help the next government, and that is a positive upshot from the hurried legislation. But, perhaps, after some time when the genie of terrorism is back in the bottle the law would need revision to relax its hold on the issue of definition of terrorist suspect and period of arbitrary detention.
