There is a need to come up with an effective legislation to tackle terrorism in the country as the world has changed after 9/11. This was the dominant view on a public forum on “Anti-terrorism laws in Pakistan: the quest to balance civil liberties and addressing terrorism”.
The forum was chaired by Shahid Hamid, former governor of Punjab, while Lord Alex Carlile, the former Independent Reviewer of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, was the key speaker.
Lord Carlile shared his experience of strengthening legislation to tackle counter-terrorism. He underlined that there had to be a narrative that dealt with the counter terrorism strategy. Lord Carlile said that the UK’s definition of terrorism was narrower.
He agreed that it had to be recognised that Pakistan was the frontline state against terrorism. An effective way out of tackling terrorism would be “shared solutions toward shared problems,” he said, adding that it was an art of maintaining an effective balance between civil liberties and counter-terrorism.
Probing as to why Pakistan had a low conviction rate than the UK, Lord Carlile said that the judiciary was the key to this effect. He said that not only do they have to be safe and secure, but they also need to be properly paid.
Moreover, the judges needed to have certain expertise, he said, disagreeing with the notion that all judges could deal with anti-terrorism cases. In the UK, he said, there was a judicial appointment commission which enforced that all judges, starting off at the district level, had to pass a written examination and undergo an interview.
The competence of a judge included absorbing diversity and comfort in dealing with others, leading to a considerable improvement in quality of judges, he said. Lord Carlile clarified that there was “absolutely no use of the best judge if the case if badly prepared.” To this end, he shared the process through which the evidence makes the way from crime scene to forensic laboratory to present in the court.
Shahid Hamid, while explaining the legislation in Pakistan regarding Anti-Terrorism said that so far, there were two legislative instruments that deal with terrorism. The first such bill is the Anti-Terrorism Act which was originally drafted in 1997; the law has since then been amended in 2001 and 2004. The Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2010 was introduced in the Senate of Pakistan by the federal interior minister on July 27, 2010. The second bill which curbs financial aspect of terrorism was the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, he said.
The Act, he said, itself came in the backdrop of Pakistan’s commitment to the United Nation’s 1998 Resolution which asked for the states to come up with measures to control money laundering, he said, adding that the law required the reporting of any suspicious transaction beyond Rs 25 lakh.
Shahid Hamid also compared that the nature of terrorism had become destructive since the law was first introduced. He said that unlike in the 1990s, a terrorist or his organisation was identifiable, today terrorists groups appeared on the horizon after a “suicide bomb” occurs.
Moreover, whereas in the past, the terrorist groups had some popular support, he said.
He also said that the present-day terrorists detonate explosives. These groups, he said, espouse an “ideological” agenda with some having “territorial ambitions.”
Despite these laws, he lamented, the conviction rate in the country was low. He said according to a report, less than 700 cases of money laundering were reported, of which only four (4) were prosecuted and none convicted. Hamid that during the same time frame, none had being convicted in India and only one has been convicted in Bangladesh.
He further said that the definition of terrorism was so wide that if somebody throws a brickbat at the police, he or she can put on trial for conducting terrorism.
Hamid recommended that the number of days for detention needed to be looked into, and those institutions that train suicide bombers need to be investigated.
Hamid shared the Investigation into Fair Trial Bill made digital information as admissible evidence even prior to the lodging of the FIR. He recommended that it would be better to remove the clause restricting phone-tapping of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians, academia, civil society and media participated in large numbers in the Forum.
