ACCORDING to a news report in this newspaper yesterday, changes to the country's law of evidence and other laws dealing with terrorism suspects may be imminent as the security establishment appears to have finally convinced the political government of the need to carry these out. In at least two instances, revisiting legal frameworks may make sense. One, the country's anti-terrorism laws are a patchwork of amendments and suspended amendments (after ordinances lapsed and the president has been debarred from re-promulgating them under the 18th Amendment), and surely a more effective and rationalised framework would be helpful. Two, the status of detainees held in Fata and Pata (particularly since the Malakand operation) needs to be clarified if prosecutions are to stick when they are finally undertaken.

Yet, a closer inspection of the problems on the counter-terrorism front suggests the real problem lies with implementation of the laws rather than the laws themselves. By and large, the various police forces in the country rely on confessional and eyewitness statements rather than building a scientific case against terror suspects. Beyond lifting bullet shells/casings from a crime scene, there is little forensic evidence that is gathered. The police have just one DNA laboratory in the country, in Islamabad, and in any case, police officers are poorly trained in protecting a crime scene and gathering delicate evidence. With little to build a case against suspects on anything other than statements, the police often rely on confessional statements as 'proof' of crimes committed. But because there is always suspicion that confessional statements given to the police are obtained under duress or through outright torture, the courts are rightly hesitant to rely on them. Eyewitness statements also tend to fall apart at the prosecution stage because witnesses fear for their own safety, leaving courts with little alternative but to set suspects free. Even before the prosecution stage, when terror suspects press for bail, the courts are often left with no choice but to allow suspects their freedom because the police fail to provide even a modicum of evidence against the suspects. Once out on bail, terrorism suspects can melt away or even launch fresh attacks, of which examples abound.

So before pushing through a raft of changes to the legal structure, the government should focus on the real causes of the system failing at the moment. Legislative changes that simply make it more difficult for a suspect to obtain bail or lower the evidence bar will be challenged in courts on grounds such as undermining fundamental rights — at which point the anti-terrorism framework could find itself back to square one.