Persecuted prosecutors: What’s the solution?
There are always a thousand ways to mess something up but there is only one way to make it work. The way the Karachi problem has been handled for years on end falls in the former category. Successive governments have always found a way to mess it up some more. Even the current half-heartedly launched Karachi operation a few weeks ago has hit a snag in a sense that it is apparently leading to nowhere as special prosecutors, appointed to prosecute cases on behalf of the government, have refused to proceed any further, citing a lack of security for themselves and their families.
After the brutal killing of senior lawyer Naimat Ali Randhawa, the prosecutors maintain, “it has become obvious that any lawyer can be targeted by criminals at any moment. There’s no security for us and our families at all.” The criminal justice system in Pakistan is already far from ideal. However, the recent issue is a lot simpler. The criminals who have been booked by the police have strong political contacts, mainly from one Karachi based ethnic party, the same one that was against this operation in the first place. There is an element of fear in the air. The prosecutors would not proceed further unless the state can offer them, and their families, protection. And their fears are not unfounded: eyewitnesses have been killed, disappeared or retracted their testimony under dubious circumstances, and prosecutors too have been targeted. This peculiar situation puts the government in a tough spot, leaving the fate of the ongoing operation in the metropolis hanging in the balance. Much like prosecutors, the witnesses are under the same level of threat, if not far more severe.
In a unique solution, the prosecution officers have offered a workaround which is no solution either. Under the Pakistan Protection Ordinance, prosecutors from other provinces can be called in to work on cases. This won’t be an ideal situation as it would send negative signals about the government’s ability to handle the security hazard, still put the life of whoever is the prosecutor at risk and could make matters worse in other different, but related, cases. For example, what would government do when the TTP or any of its affiliate threatens prosecutors in one province, for they have proven that they have access throughout the country? Would it follow the same course as it is has been suggested now? Instead of opting for stopgap solutions, why is the government not more interested in removing lacunas in anti-terrorism legislation, making it impossible to manipulate? That would be a real solution.
