The National Assembly Okayed amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 amid protests from the opposition parties. The amendments provide that no legal action will be taken against personnel of the armed forces that make arrests in ‘good faith’. The amendment in Section 2 says that a person will be subject to the Act provided that there shall be no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings against any person in respect of any arrest which is in ‘good faith’ alone intended to be done under sub section iii and iv (these sub sections relate to persons claiming or to be members of terrorist group etc.) of the Section 2. It means that a person could be tried under the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015 if in ‘good faith’ it is found that he could be subject to the Act. The main objection raised by the opposition members was that any person could be nabbed in good faith. They wanted the government to define ‘good faith’. The amendments already passed by the Senate were opposed by the opposition parties, including the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). The parliamentarians belonging to these parties wanted clarifications on some points contained in the amendments. When the bill was presented in the National Assembly, it was criticised by opposition lawmakers for violating basic human rights. Moreover, the need for the changes was questioned as being unnecessary after the passing of the 21st Amendment. Other lawmakers asked the government to define what it meant by ‘good faith’ in the amendment and how many people would be affected by the amendment. The requested answers were not provided as the government rushed the changes through parliament without a full debate. That there has been no parliamentary debate, no public discussion, not even a vote in the legislative assembly before the passing of the amendment is shocking. Yes, these may be exceptional times in Pakistan, but that does not mean that there is no debate before changing the fundamental aspects of the country’s democracy. The government has a contradictory solution for what can be done to counter terrorism. Eroding fundamental rights and creating a security state should only be principles of last resort. The state instead has decided that the best approach to fighting terrorism lies in subverting all the principles of formal justice and fundamental rights. Instead of improving its capacity to arrest terrorists on the basis of strong evidence, it has allowed law enforcers the power to arrest in ‘good faith’ – in other words, without any evidence. There is little to celebrate when the doctrine of necessity is followed. One can only hope that the promised consequence, the eradication of terrorism from the country, is achieved with urgency.
pk.shafaqna.com
