IN the year that has just ended, law-enforcement agencies — including the police and Rangers — continued to make widespread use of so-called encounters to eliminate suspects. For example, in Karachi, where clearly ‘encounters’ are a favoured method of law enforcers, nearly 700 suspects were killed in this manner in 2015, while the number of security personnel who fell in the line of duty is 95, as per official figures. If it is any consolation, the number of ‘encounters’ was less than in 2014; around 925 suspects were killed in the city in such shootouts that year. The Punjab police is not too far behind, as regular reports of ‘encounter killings’ also came in from that province in 2015. In fact, one of the most high-profile examples of such slayings was that of dreaded Lashkar-i-Jhangvi militant Malik Ishaq and his sons in July last year. Though it is difficult to establish a correlation, Karachi police also claim that there was a considerable drop in targeted killings in the city last year as compared to 2014; in 2015, 986 people fell victim to targeted attacks while the number was 1,925 the year before.
As Pakistan wages an uphill battle against crime and militancy, it is clear that law enforcers continue to prefer short cuts such as ‘encounters’. This is a deeply troubling approach. Perhaps the main problem is that senior police officials condone the practice in not so many words. For example, Rao Anwar, a seasoned Karachi police officer who is known as an ‘encounter specialist’, shrugged off questions from this paper recently about the use of extrajudicial methods in the course of police work. Police officials appear to believe that ‘encounters’ are a requirement of getting the job done, especially when it comes to dealing with suspects of notorious repute. However, in order to maintain the sanctity of fundamental rights and due process, the police hierarchy, as well as the high command of other security forces, must take a clear stand against extrajudicial methods, including ‘encounters’, of eliminating suspects. In other words, security personnel cannot be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner, whether they are dealing with violent criminals, or militants of various persuasions. Instead, criminal justice reform — something that seems to be completely missing from the official agenda — is the only way to deal with dangerous criminals and terrorists without violating the bounds of fundamental rights and misusing authority.
Published in Dawn, January 2nd, 2016
