12-11-2010, 03:03 PM
After many years during which the intelligence agencies saw themselves as being above the law and not answerable to anyone, action by the Supreme Court has offered some hope that this could change. Through their counsel, the ISI and the MI have admitted the 11 men who were whisked away from Adiala Jail some weeks ago are indeed in their custody. This marks a rather sharp departure from the previous denial from the agencies that the men had been arrested by them; the account given was that they had been taken away by persons posing as agency personnel. Several matters have been straightened out during the hearing. One is the idea that the agencies cannot be made to account for their actions or that they are ‘immune’ from court proceedings. The chief justice, who heads the three-member bench hearing the case, had previously asked the attorney general to explain under which law the agencies were working and seeking immunity. The declaration by the counsel for the agencies that they indeed hold the court in esteem sets an important precedent for the future.
There are, however, other matters that are not quite so clear. The court has been told there are no other missing persons. This raises the issue of what has become of the thousands of people Baloch nationalist groups say are missing or other victims whose families claim they were ‘picked up’ years ago. There are other issues too. The fact is that the 11 men, described by the agencies as dangerous terrorists and held under the Army Act after being detected in an area of operation, had been acquitted by an anti-terrorist court. Doubts are bound to arise about their retrial by a military court and the question of the possibility of parallel justice systems being operated comes to mind. Another important question arising in the context of such cases is poor investigation. The lack of transparency in the trial of terrorists only gives credence to suspicions that they are being victimised. This can do nothing to build support against terrorism. The case we are seeing unfold is an important one that could set more significant precedents. To our satisfaction, National security has not been threatened by the admission that these men were being held, and this display of accountability may go some way in improving public confidence in the agencies.
There are, however, other matters that are not quite so clear. The court has been told there are no other missing persons. This raises the issue of what has become of the thousands of people Baloch nationalist groups say are missing or other victims whose families claim they were ‘picked up’ years ago. There are other issues too. The fact is that the 11 men, described by the agencies as dangerous terrorists and held under the Army Act after being detected in an area of operation, had been acquitted by an anti-terrorist court. Doubts are bound to arise about their retrial by a military court and the question of the possibility of parallel justice systems being operated comes to mind. Another important question arising in the context of such cases is poor investigation. The lack of transparency in the trial of terrorists only gives credence to suspicions that they are being victimised. This can do nothing to build support against terrorism. The case we are seeing unfold is an important one that could set more significant precedents. To our satisfaction, National security has not been threatened by the admission that these men were being held, and this display of accountability may go some way in improving public confidence in the agencies.