KARACHI: What is the utility of civilian institutions such as the police and the judiciary if their functions are ultimately taken over by the military and paramilitary forces? Shouldn’t structural weaknesses be eliminated from these institutions to strengthen them so that they rightfully perform their functions? Why do we keep going back to the military hoping it will provide solutions despite being known to be ineffective as in the case of Rangers deployed in Karachi since 1989 and have been unable to control its law and order problems?

All these questions and more were posed to the panellists by well-known broadcast journalist Wusutullah Khan, who was also the moderator, at the discussion titled ‘Trial and terror: should the military solve crime and dispense justice?’ organised by Herald monthly magazine at the Karachi Press Club on Wednesday.

Mr Khan began the discussion by asking panellist Salahuddin Ahmed, former president of the Karachi Bar Association, to summarise at what periods of time the military and its associate forces directly intervened and when did they come in to help the civilian administration and what legal questions were raised when they did so. Mr Ahmed traced it back to Yahya Khan’s era and discussed briefly the martial laws of Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

“However, it has been seen that the civilian governments have set up military courts with much the same enthusiasm as military governments.”

And he gave the examples of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto when he had set up military courts in 1977 and Nawaz Sharif under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. “Now under Nawaz Sharif’s current government military courts have been set up and have been given constitutional cover under the 21st Amendment.” He said that interesting legal questions have come up but these were outside the realm of law. For instance, can the military be given the responsibility of policing and judicial functions?

At this point, Mr Khan interrupted Mr Ahmed and commented about the duplicity of the judiciary in its judgements about martial law. To a degree, Mr Ahmed concurred with Mr Khan. “The decision against dictators’ rule comes only after they have left. As it happened in the case of Yahya Khan in the Asma Jilani judgement. Our courts have considered themselves to be subservient to the military and not asserted themselves. Having said that, some judges have tried to give judgements and under severe limitations have pushed the envelope. For instance, in the Nusrat Bhutto case the judiciary condoned Zia’s martial law but challenged the setting up of military courts.”

Mr Khan then turned to the next panellist Jamil Yusuf, founding member of the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee, and asked him to discuss the reasons behind the failure of civilian institutions in fulfilling their responsibilities. According to Mr Yusuf, the bureaucracy and politicians are mainly responsible for making the police ineffective. Moreover, the police do not have the capacity to deal with terrorism and it is only the military and paramilitary forces that can do so. “None of the policing reforms were ever implemented, because it suited the purpose of the bureaucracy and politicians. The Taliban are like an invading army which only an army can tackle. The police are not trained to tackle them.”

Zohra Yusuf of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan was asked to comment about the fact that Pakistan has always been a security state; dispensing justice has never really been viewed from the human rights view. She agreed with the perception of Pakistan being a security state but she felt that when there was a smooth transition of the democratic regimes in 2013, “we all celebrated it but it was premature. Now it seems there is a shadow military government. The civilian government has betrayed the trust of the people. It has with least resistance accepted the formation of military courts and lifted the moratorium on capital punishment. There is complete lack of transparency on the Rangers-led operation in Karachi.”

Mr Khan asked each of the panellists, “What antibiotic would they prescribe to cure the ills of the country?” Ms Yusuf quipped that perhaps we should now go to quacks. “On a serious note, we need to strengthen our institutions, bear with them even if there are faults.” Mr Yusuf was in an indignant mood and refused to answer the question directly and instead counter-questioned the gist of which was that because the policing institution had been destroyed there was no choice but to accept the military courts, as long as they were not misused, the managing of law and order by paramilitary institutions till the civilian institutions and politicians got their act together. Mr Ahmed argued that the army had been fighting the war against terrorism since the year 2000, while for the past 60 years the army had also periodically done operations in Balochistan. But in both cases, they had not been successful. “The army’s internal defence has been unsuccessful,” he said.

Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2015

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