Resistance in the parliament to adopting the Pakistan Protection Ordinance (PPO), promulgated by the PML-N government last October, as law ended on Wednesday with the opposition parties in the National Assembly agreeing to pass it in the form, as amended by the Senate. But it seems criticism of its harsh provisions, in general, would linger on.

Even the opposition parties in the parliament predicated their assent with the government ensuring that the law is not used for victimising political opponents or innocent individuals.

PPO attempted to cover up loopholes in the existing anti-terrorism laws that helped suspected terrorists escape conviction in courts. It invited wide criticism for the excessive powers it granted to law enforcement agencies to deal with terrorists, or lawbreakers, fitting its definition.

Human rights organisations found two of its clauses, which allowed police to shoot a suspect at sight after shouting a warning and to keep anybody in preventive detention for 90 days, particularly reprehensible. They dubbed the PPO a draconian law and other critics agreed that the provisions clashed with the basic rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Now both houses of the parliament have whittled down these provisions, restricting the preventive detention period to 60 days and shooting orders only to police officer of grade 15, as well as the life of the amended law to two years, instead of the three years of the PPO.

Jurists and constitutional experts, however, still find faults with its important provisions.

Former President Supreme Court Bar Association Yasin Azad believes “powerful sections of the society will misuse the new law the same way they did other such laws in the past — as tools of suppression of the weaker sections”.

One can only hope for greater vigilance this time, according to him.

“Who does not know how our rulers misuse police,” he said. Now anyone looking suspicious to a police officer could be a fair target for shooting. “Yes, the new law calls for a judicial inquiry if the suspect is killed. But it is never difficult for our police to produce enough circumstantial evidence during investigation.”

Barrister Azad noted that under the new law even electronically generated material, such as e-mails, telephone calls and text messages, are admissible evidence. “It may be appropriate to use such evidence in a developed country where law enforcers are adequately trained and fully equipped,” he said. “But in Pakistan, it would need lots of careful handling.”

Still, like the reluctant lawmakers, he thought such shortcomings in the law could be condoned because of the extraordinary times the nation was going through in fighting terrorists and militancy. But he hoped enforcers of the law invoke it only against those the law defines as militants and enemy aliens.

Former interim law minister Ahmer Bilal Soofi had a more specific objection to the new law on the anvil. Countries all over the world do resort to such legislation, but they are restricted to war zones, he said.

“There is every justification for framing this kind of law to deal with people in a conflict zone, like we have in North Waziristan, for a limited time period. However, to implement it all over the country, as our new law does, is a serious issue,” the Supreme Court lawyer said.

Unfortunately there have been conflicts in Pakistan but no precedent of conflict specific legislation that could guide today’s lawmakers to deal with the current situation, he said.

On the other hand, Mr Soofi saw the already existing anti-terrorism laws creating lot of confusion for the law enforcement agencies.

For example, he said, under the new law the provision dealing with the setting up of a joint investigation team made army an essential part of it, already available in existing laws too. “Now the question arises, which law the enforcer adheres to?”

There are many similar confusing overlapping provisions, which will be creating legal complications in days to come. One could be what would be the status of cases registered under this law after its expiry!

When the same queries were posed to a senior legal advisor to the government, not willing to be named, said, “If one went through the definitions of ‘enemy alien’ and ‘militant’ as given in the new law, it would be easy to understand the purpose behind formulating this law.

“An enemy alien is one whose identity is unascertainable as a Pakistani, in the locality where he has been arrested or in the locality where he claims to be residing, whether by documentary or oral evidence; or one who has been deprived of his citizenship by naturalization,” he said.

“And the law defines ‘militant’ as ‘any person who wages war or insurrection against Pakistan, or raises arms against Pakistan, its citizens, the armed forces or civil armed forces. “Above all, the law will be in force for two years, which clearly showed the government would only be making its use for its ongoing military operation in North Waziristan,” added the government’s legal advisor reassuringly.

Published in Dawn, July 4th, 2014