The new Anti-Terrorism Ordinance (ATO) has attracted stinging criticism for bringing within its ambit "civil commotion" as an offence triable by the anti-terrorist courts and for expanding the scope of this so-called offence so vastly as to give the government a carte blanche for use against its critics. The only official response to this valid criticism has been the usual assurance that this will not be done.
The worth of these assurances and the dangers latent in the loosely worded ATO have been brought home by two recent events and in these a Lahore-based journalist, was reportedly kidnapped by some official agency, kept incommunicado for two days at an unknown place and then released in response to public pressure. He says "all methods" were used to extract information about his involvement with a BBC team which, the government believes, is filming a report inimical to it.
The journalist was not charged with any offense, and it is not known which agency had kidnapped him. This alarming abduction is reminiscent of such disappearances in the 1970s under the then dictatorial regimes in Latin America. Fortunately, however, he was released and returned home safely. But who is to know of tomorrow? And who can tell who the next target of official ire or paranoia will be? Already, early Wednesday morning the car of a senior journalist working with The News was burnt to cinders yards outside his residence.
In another incident, Mr. Hussain Haqqani, Chairman Urban Democratic Front and spokesman of the Pakistan Awami Ittehad, was off-loaded from a Dubai-bound flight and, later, he too "disappeared". News reports indicate that he was "picked up" from his brother's residence in Rawalpindi by unknown official agencies. So far neither his whereabouts are known, nor the offence, if any, of which he may be charged. His brother, a serving army officer, too is said to have been "roughed up" but then set free from temporary captivity. Mr. Haqqani is a known public figure. If he can become the victim of such high-handedness, surely other critics of the government will have cause for concern.
Both these incidents fit into what has become a disturbing pattern of the government increasingly operating outside the law to harass its opponents. With such brazen disregard for the rule of law and fundamental rights, it is justifiedly feared that recourse to the "civil commotion" provision of the ATO may only be a matter of time to suppress dissenting voices. That is why it has been universally condemned, and seems set for judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
Such strong-arm tactics, combined with the blatant disregard of judicial advice on the new anti-terrorism law
Go To Page: 1 2
