ZAKIUR Rehman Lakhvi’s crawl towards judicially permitted freedom appears to be near an end.

The federal government may yet try to impede the release of the Lashkar-e-Taiba leader and alleged architect of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, but it is unlikely to be anything more than a shoddy ad hoc measure to cover up gross failure over the past six years.

Lakhvi should not be a free man. That he may soon be free is entirely the fault of the state, and especially the security establishment, whose only real intention appears to have been to take the LeT leader out of the global spotlight when the international pressure on Pakistan was intense and then do little of note.

Be it an energetic pursuit of evidence against Lakhvi and his co-accused, appointing prosecutors with vigorous intent, providing the necessary protection to the court or ensuring that the defence team’s manoeuvring is swiftly and adequately countered, the state has failed in nearly every area.

How, for example, as long rumoured and recently confirmed by media reports, has it been possible for Lakhvi to spend his time in prison in relative luxury and with access to his network of supporters — unless the state itself is complicit?

Surely though the judiciary must shoulder some responsibility for this unhappy state of affairs. While the judiciary cannot be expected to simply allow the state to indefinitely hold an individual, there do appear to be strong reasons not to allow Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi to walk free.

There are several examples where the courts themselves have urged the prosecution, the police and the government to do more than they are at the moment. Were it not for judicial intervention there would be little movement on local government elections.

Were it not for judicial intervention several high-profile crimes, like the lynching of a Christian couple in Kot Radha Kishan, would probably have been quietly dropped by the authorities.

There are other instances as well, such as the case of the missing persons where the judiciary’s interest and activism have been positive and welcomed. A similar approach is needed in the case of Lakhvi.

The Islamabad High Court’s decision to nullify the conviction of Mumtaz Qadri on terrorism charges has already resulted in uncertainty. And further controversy could follow its latest orders. In such cases, surely the Supreme Court ought to take notice, seek answers and suggest the necessary changes.

There is a further problem: if Lakhvi is set free, will he be allowed a hero’s welcome and made available for LeT/Jamaatud Dawa/Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation propaganda events?

It is well known that the state has many tools available to it to keep militant groups from emerging from the shadows and taking centre stage.

Already there appear to be attempts to hijack March 23 as it was last year by radical groups. A repeat should not be allowed.

Published in Dawn, March 14th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play