The clouds of controversy hovering over the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2010, are likely to thicken further after the government proposed fresh amendments in the draft that might be unacceptable for sympathisers of militants and some political parties. The draft bill is already pending with the Senate Standing Committee on Interior for the last one year for.
Some of the fresh amendments might invite ire and criticism from religious quarters and sympathisers of the militants, who are already reluctant in passing the proposed bill that aims at further tightening the noose around terrorists. Some of the fresh amendments relate to enhancement in punishment of extortion to 14 years, which might be unacceptable for some political parties. The Interior Ministry and Law Ministry have jointly proposed the fresh amendments.
One specific amendment proposes, “The applicability of act may be extended to the citizen of Pakistan and person in service of Pakistan where ever they may be, including person on Pakistan flagship and aircraft.” The draft Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2010, is pending with the Senate Standing Committee on Interior for the last one year, but committee chairman Senator Talha Mahmood, who belongs to the JUI-F, seems reluctant in passing the bill, as he sees some of the clauses of the proposed bill in violation of human rights.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani would soon be given a briefing on the fresh amendments, a source in the Ministry of Interior said. The fresh amendments, which have been tagged ‘legal proposals’ by the Law Ministry, a copy of which is available with Pakistan Today, propose that Section 6 of the draft bill may be amended to add that “any action or intention to threaten the sovereignty, integrity, security, defence and unity of Pakistan to be included in the offence of terrorism”.
One certain amendment proposes that the punishment of extortion as enumerated in the draft bill may be enhanced to 14 years to bring the offence in the prohibitory clause. The amendment might earn reservations from some of the political parties. The fresh amendments further propose that the punishment provided in Section 11-F for enticing public in religious gathering may be enhanced, as the same will prove a deterrent in nurturing madrassa culture. This very amendment is likely to invite the ire of religious elements, which have been blaming the government for acting against madrassas.
The legal proposals further said that “specific time period should be given in the act for the conclusion of the trial by the ATA courts and the same shall be implemented religiously”. It said “Section 21 shall be amended to provide for authorisation to keep the names of the judges, prosecutors and witnesses secret even from the accused”. A provision may be added to empower the court to order transfer of property, including shares, confiscated from accused in the name of the federal government, the amendments further proposed.
Sources said the Law Ministry had also recommended some administrative proposals, which said that Section 21 of the draft bill gave powers to the court to make necessary orders to take measures for the protection of judges, counsels, public prosecutors, witnesses and other people engaged in court proceedings. However, there was a need to take more effective measures in order to improve the confidence of the public, so that the actions in aid of civil institutions may be strengthened.
In this regard it is proposed that in special circumstances and in order to ensure the safety and protection of the judges, prosecutors and witnesses, the recourse to the modern devices, such as video conferencing and video cameras, may also be made possible to ensure the safety and protection of judges, prosecutors and witnesses. It said during the recent years, it had been observed that the lack of conviction to the offenders was not because of the legal impediments, but was mainly owed to the prosecution and investigation failures.
In this regard it is proposed that training and capacity building of the investigators and prosecutors may be emphasised for which no separate legislation was required. Appointment of competent and experienced investigation officers and prosecutor may be ensured for strengthening the prosecution and resultantly the court would ultimately help achieve desire results in trials. This step could also help to prevent the wrongful conviction or detention of those who are not terrorists.