JUDICIARY AND TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN

Muhammad Sajjad Haider

The long awaiting judgment in Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto assassination case was announced on 31 August 2017 after over 9 nine years trial in the Anti-Terrorism Court. During this period of trial, eight judges were appointed but they could not conclude the proceedings due to various reasons including fear of intimidation by the terrorists under trial. The judge who has finally decided the case was recently appointed.

The judgment came as a surprise not only to the bereaved family but the political followers of the victim, in particular, and to general public, in general. The judge while delivering the judgement acquitting hard core terrorists having alignment with TTP and Al-Qaeda on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the culprits. However, the judge convicted and sentenced two police officers for 17 years each on the allegations of concealing designs to commit offence, which as public services were bound to preserve and on the allegation of causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offenders.  Ironically, the police officers were convicted to “concealing designs to commit offence, as public servants and “causing disappearance of evidence, or giving false information” to screen offenders but the accused who could have benefited from the actions of the police officers were acquitted.

The judgment focused more on the benefits and favours towards terrorists rather than appreciating the prosecution evidence. Since the writer of the article was closely associated with the investigation of the case as such he was aware of the facts and evidences connecting under trial accused persons to the crime and the crime scene through forensic audit of their mobile phones, geo-fencing of their presence at the crime scene and DNA test carried out on few articles recovered from the home of one of the accused persons which matched to the remains of suicide bomber.

The judgement, inter alia, concentrated more on the delay occurred in recording of confessional statements of the accused and gave its benefits to the terrorists without appreciating the independent corroboratory evidence. The confessional statements have to be proved by the prosecution through independent corroboratory evidence in support of the disclosures made by the accused persons. The prosecution has corroborated the disclosures made by the accused persons in their confessional statements, through independent evidence.

This judgement has, in fact, exposed the vulnerability of the judicial system, which could have easily been intimidated by the terrorists. Eight judges over the period of 9 years did not conclude the case, primarily, for the fear of threats those judges were experiencing during the trial. Those judges, therefore, chose to linger on the proceedings rather than concluding it, although they were convinced of the guilt of the accused persons, but were fearful of the consequences as well. All those judges had witnessed the murder of one of the prosecutors of the case by those affiliated to TTP/A-Qaeda on May 3, 2013 while he was on way to court for the prosecution of the case of assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Perhaps this time the judiciary could not withstand the threats from the terrorists and acquitted the under trial terrorists despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence against them.

In Pakistan, the terrorists had killed number of lawyers appearing as prosecutors besides judges fleeing the country to save their lives. Frequent transfer of Anti-Terrorism Courts judges not only hampered the dispensation of justice to the bereaved families but also encouraged the terrorists to exploit the vulnerability of the judicial system and the judges. 

Under Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, forty-five Anti-Terrorism Courts were established throughout the country but unfortunately the conviction rate had always been low. In 2014 alone, 205 cases of terrorism were heard in two Anti-Terrorism Courts of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Unfortunately, there was conviction in less then 10 cases by the ATC Rawalpindi but there was no conviction by the ATC Islamabad. In 2014, the ATC Rawalpindi even acquitted the chief of Laskhar-e-Jhangvi in three high profile terrorism cases “for want of evidence”. Since 2007, the courts acquitted over 2,000 alleged terrorists involved in high profile terrorism.  

The acquittal of terrorists by the courts could also, inter alia, be attributed to the facts that the witness protection is only a lip service in Pakistan and, therefore, except police officers, independent witnesses do not attend the courts for witness.

The Supreme Court had, however, issued guidelines directing the Chief Justices of the High Courts to appoint a monitoring judge to monitor the pace of the trial yet the cases had been lingering on for years.  The guidelines also provide that only one case is to be assigned to an ATC for adjudication till it was finalised and appropriate orders issued. However, on the contrary, the judges have to try more than one case at the same time. This practice causes long delays thus providing opportunities to the terrorists to exploit the situation in their benefit and favour.

Although there had been frequent amendments in the law to further improve its application and the severity of the punishment yet it still needs reforms vis-à-vis protection to judges and the witnesses. The strict compliance of guidelines stipulated by the Supreme Courts would ensure speedy disposal of the cases in accordance with the law.

Pakistan is victim of terrorism for decades where it has lost over 70 thousand lives and suffered billions of dollars in terms of economy. It hosted millions of Afghan refugees for decades and bore heavy additional financial burden. The judicial system of the country needs to be revamped and acted as beacons of justice to the victims of the terrorism. The acquitted terrorists re-join their respective groups to again play havoc to the people and the country. The menace of terrorism can, besides other tools, only be eliminated from the country with the strong and committed judicial system.

The writer is a former Director of Federal Investigation Agency, Government of Pakistan and can be reached at janjuha@hotmail.com