New defamation law

Despite protests from the opposition, the media and the legal profession, the ruling party has pushed through the National Assembly a defamation law that serves to curb freedom of the press.

The aim behind the amendments to the Defamation Ordinance of October 2002 seems to be to unduly restrict the scope of the watchdog functions of the press in relation to the acts, omissions and irregularities by officials and institutions in dealing with matters of public interest.

The party that stands to benefit the most from the bill is the bureaucracy, for it can invoke the law at will to subdue the press. The implications of the bill are indeed press-specific.

The words 'defamation' and 'actionable defamation' have not been clearly defined, and the bill seems to be tilted unduly in favour of shielding an erring official or institution.

What is missing in the present case is a balance between the requirements of a free press and a citizen's right to protect himself against libel and defamation. That newspapers will suffer the most from the law is indicated by the absence of the word 'author' in the bill, for it is the 'publication' which in the ultimate analysis will bear the brunt of the amended law.

Certain ugly features of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill deserve to be noted. The penalty for defamatory utterances and publication of these has been increased from Rs50,000 to Rs300,000, and publication of an apology or retraction does not diminish the aggrieved party's right to demand compensation.

Which means that, even if an apology has been published, the plaintiff reserves the right to demand damages. Worse still, no limit has been placed on the compensatory damage that a party may demand, even after a retraction or apology has been published or aired.

The aggrieved party can also proceed against the defamer both under the civil and criminal law. Mercifully, a most draconian clause was dropped from the bill. This clause provided that "in the case of libel, the publisher, editor, reporter and the distributor shall be severally and jointly liable for action for defamation." If included, that provision would have virtually ousted the press from the area of critical comment and reporting.

The bill accepts the truth of the matter as a legitimate ground for defence, if criticism is made in the public interest. The defendant can take the position that what was published was a fair comment in public interest and not to defame anyone or cast aspersion on any institution.

The plaintiff, however, retains wide options, for the law enables him to harass the defamer no end, and he can demand compensatory damage even after the defendant has made adequate amends for the unintended offence.

One fails to see how these provisions can serve the cause of democracy and a free press. In fact, as pointed out by the opposition, organizations representing the newspaper industry, and bar associations, the existing law, despite some flaws, was quite adequate and a new law was not needed.

The amendments have merely served to make the task of the press unduly difficult and opened newspapers to persecution both by the government and by those willing to act at the instance of the government. One hopes that when the bill goes to the Senate, it will revise it in the light of the amendments suggested by the press and bar bodies.

Sharon's latest

Signs of fissures have appeared within Israel's ruling Likud Party whose central committee, meeting on Wednesday, vetoed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans to seek a coalition government with the opposition Labour Party.

The move would have given Mr Sharon the support he needs to implement his unilateral Gaza pull-out plan which is opposed by the Likud. However, indications from Tel Aviv are that Mr Sharon will go ahead with the plan despite his party's opposition to it.

For its part, the Labour Party has declined to join the government and called for fresh elections. The controversial withdrawal plan envisages the vacating of Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and building 1,000 new housing units for settlers in the West Bank.

Israel's cabinet has already approved the plan by a 24-11 vote, ostensibly because it will put Jewish settlers and Israeli troops now in Gaza out of harm's way, while the Jewish state will continue to control the territory's borders, its coastline and airspace.

The plan seemingly has President George Bush's backing too, leading the Palestinian Authority to condemn it as a flagrant violation of the Quartet's - the US, UN, EU and Russia - roadmap to peace. Unveiled last year, the roadmap calls for halting new settlements, dismantling the existing ones and, finally, creating an independent Palestinian state by next year.

Given Mr Sharon's unilateral policies - the construction of a wall around the West Bank and now the plan to resettle Gaza's Jews there - and America's accommodation of these, the roadmap has been virtually reduced to pieces.

The realization of an independent Palestinian state within the stipulated timeframe is even a remoter possibility, if at all. The impending political turmoil in Israel, with the prime minister now falling out with the ruling party, and the possibility of an early election next year are serious obstacles in the way of the roadmap's implementation. Where all this leaves the Palestinians is a question that does not seem to bother anyone, least of all, the Quartet. This is tragedy plain and simple.

Deaths in custody

Considering the dearth of competent, well-trained officers in the country's police force, it should come as no surprise that the law enforcement agencies in Hyderabad and Fasialabad have once again blotted their copybook.

Two men - one picked up in connection with theft, the other for his alleged links to Al Qaeda - have died in police custody, triggering protests and accusations of torture from relatives and religious activists.

The circumstances of their death are unclear, with the Faisalabad police claiming that Al Qaeda suspect Qari Noor Muhammad died of a heart attack. The contention in the case of the Hyderabad incident is that the victim, Nisar Mallah, fearing that the authorities would lodge a formal charge against him, scaled an electricity pole and came into contact with a live wire that led to his death.

While only an impartial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the victims' deaths can establish the facts, it is no secret that police frequently inflict physical torture on detainees to extract confessions.

Many a time, they take things too far, and the victims, unable to bear further excesses, die either in custody or in hospital. The real circumstances of their death are invariably covered up and even postmortem reports are falsified.

What we need now is the enforcement of the rules contained in the elaborate Police Order 2002. The law clearly states that an officer found guilty of inflicting torture on detainees can be punished with imprisonment and a fine.

Considering the number of custodial deaths that have been recorded in the past two years, one would like the police to reveal the numbers for inquiries held and of officers penalized under the law.

It seems that most get away with temporary suspension - a licence for other officers who want only to violate the norms of detainee treatment. If the enforcers of the law can do this, how can they expect the rest of the people to abide by the rules of a civilized society?