Saudi authorities earned fulsome praise for choosing the latter course and enabled the Pakistani middlemen to claim credit for their none-too-obvious labours. But if the Saudi gesture was in any way linked with the dispatch of two militants wanted by Saudi Arabia, the people have a right to be taken into confidence. —AP/File Photo

THE release of five Pakistanis, who had been detained in Saudi Arabia for possible involvement in drug trafficking, has caused nationwide celebration, and perhaps for good reason. However, the affair has underlined the need for a rational policy towards Pakistani citizens who run into trouble in foreign lands.

For several days the Saudi decision to release the five Pakistanis was treated by the media, especially the TV channels, as the top story that was allowed precedence over some significant national and international events. At least two TV channels claimed honours for their decisive role in securing relief for the five. The interior minister tried to cover himself with glory by rushing to inform the detainees’ families of the happy development before anyone else could. For a change the people were treated to a heartwarming, human story. What, however, was the success scored by the knights on parade?

Eight Pakistani citizens had gone to Saudi Arabia to perform umra. They were taken into custody for carrying drugs in their footwear. The chappals in which heroin had been stuffed had been given to them by their travel agents. The latter, a husband-and-wife team, were soon hauled up in Karachi.

At the very start of the investigation the Saudi police found that five of the detainees had no knowledge of the drug under their feet while their three companions were aware of the fact. Thus the former five had apparently to be discharged and only the remaining three were to be tried. The only question was whether those found innocent were to be freed on acquittal after trial or whether they could be discharged before trial.

The Saudi authorities earned fulsome praise for choosing the latter course and enabled the Pakistani middlemen to claim credit for their none-too-obvious labours. But if the Saudi gesture was in any way linked with the dispatch of two militants wanted by Saudi Arabia, the people have a right to be taken into confidence.

The government’s intervention in the case is no doubt praiseworthy, but the fact that this display of concern for Pakistani citizens in distress abroad was unusual cannot be denied. What made the authorities take a special interest in this case? Was it because the detainees had left their homes on pilgrimage? Do pilgrims have a better claim to the state’s protection than those going abroad on non-religious missions? An answer in the affirmative would be violative of the basic norms of justice and commonsense. Or, was the initiative for leniency towards the Pakistani detainees taken by the Saudis?

In the flurry of statements on the affair issued by all and sundry, the chairman of the Senate standing committee on the interior ministry made a most relevant observation when he referred to the state’s responsibility to look after every Pakistani that might come into conflict with the law abroad.

An immediate issue is the fate of the three detainees in the present case, who are to be tried by a Saudi court. Regardless of the degree of their responsibility for the offence attributed to them their basic rights to adequate defence and a fair trial cannot be suppressed. Will Islamabad recognise its duty to ensure that these rights are duly respected? One hopes that in the event of their being convicted they will not be sentenced to beheading and that the conditions of their imprisonment will conform to UN standards.

More important than anything else, the opportunity for a thorough review of government policy in such matters should not be missed. Sizeable numbers of Pakistanis are held in different parts of the world each year. They fall into three broad categories: those who travel on proper documents and run into trouble for no fault of theirs, those who go abroad through legal means and seek material gains through crime, and those who adopt illegal means to access a foreign labour market.

The official policy usually is to let the ‘lawbreakers’ pay for their wrongdoing, especially in cases falling in the two latter categories. This policy cannot be justified as even those accused of the most heinous crimes have their basic rights. They must not be detained without lawful sanction, they must not be tortured to extract confessions or for any other purpose, they must have proper legal defence and they must not be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.

Year after year thousands of Pakistani citizens are deported from countries across the globe for illegal entry or stay and many of them are guilty only of being tricked into involuntary felony by travel or recruitment agencies. Besides, a good many of them are charged with criminal acts and awarded stiff punishments including the death sentence. It is time to create mechanisms to ensure that the Pakistanis coming into conflict with the law abroad are treated no worse than what their offence would warrant in a civilised state.

All our missions abroad must be made responsible for gaining access to Pakistani citizens arrested for deportation or trial in the countries they are assigned to, and to ensure that they are not denied their legal rights. They should also be advised to distinguish between ordinary criminals and those that are driven by poverty to cross the limits of the law in search of work. The Overseas Workers Foundation may be charged with maintaining a complete record of illegal migrants and the people responsible for their suffering. A category that deserves special consideration comprises fishermen who accidentally cross the boundaries at sea and are left to rot in foreign prisons.

The government should also explore the possibilities of signing protocols with friendly countries under which Pakistanis convicted abroad should be allowed to serve at least a major part of their sentence in their own country. All this will however be possible only if the state realises that its obligation to respect the rights of its citizens does not lapse the moment the latter go out of its territorial jurisdiction.