Some recent official revelations have offered fresh perspectives on the plight of missing persons in the country. Pursuing them diligently and connecting the dots can help end these enforced disappearances.
In a rare admission last Friday, the army spokesperson disclosed that some missing persons indeed were in the custody of agencies. “Not all missing persons were in the custody of the army” he said. He added: “Those with the state are under legal process.”
As further confirmation, he disclosed for the first time that a “special cell on missing persons had been established in the GHQ.” If there was any doubts as to who held the missing persons - the euphemism “not all missing persons” notwithstanding - these were removed.
That the disappeared indeed were in state custody had also become clear a week earlier. In the run up to voting on the budget, Akhtar Mengal, the head of BNP-M, and an ally of the government, declared that his party will withdraw its support if there was no progress on his six demands; the main demand being the recovery of those missing for years in Balochistan.
With fears that the budget could indeed be voted against, dozens of missing Balochs were recovered a day before the voting. The state did not disclose who held them, for how long and under what charges. But their prompt recovery left little doubt as to who had held them. The beans had been spilled.
There was also the explosive - but little noticed - admission by the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances Justice Javed Iqbal during a briefing to the Senate Committee on human rights late last year.
Quoted from the official record of the proceedings (paragraph nine of the minutes of the meeting on August 28, 2018 at the Parliament House), Justice Iqbal said: “The Chairman Committee (Senator Mustafa Khokhar) inquired if any action had been initiated against those individuals who were thought to be involved in abducting people and depriving missing persons of their liberty. The Committee was apprised that action had been taken against 153 army personnel. The Chairman of the Commission added that the Parliament must take a lead role to address the issue of missing persons and should legislate to penalise enforced disappearances and missing persons. The Chairman Committee agreed and added that Section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Pakistan Penal Code also needed to be amended.”
The Senate Committee meeting was not an in camera meeting. It was open to the media and the public. When later some journalists asked Justice Javed Iqbal to elaborate on the involvement of 153 personnel in enforced disappearances, he declined. For some unknown reasons, it also found no mention in the reports of the media the next day.
Last month, the UN Office of Human Rights also addressed a letter to the Foreign Office. Stating that “enforced disappearance is a human rights concern”, it recalled its urgings in the past and pleaded once again to address “the widespread phenomenon of enforced and involuntary disappearances.”
All this makes one thing clear: that by and large, the missing persons are held by the state. This also explains why the efforts thus far have centred around sporadic attempts under compulsion to recover the disappeared, and not to prevent disappearances, let alone punishing the culprits involved.
The debate, therefore, must now be shifted towards prevention of enforced disappearances that has been with us for more than quarter of a century, instead of focusing on merely the recovery of the missing.
To do so we need to recall the visit to Pakistan in 2012 of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (UNWGEID) and the suggestions it made.
It called for making enforced disappearance a new and autonomous crime in the Penal Code, keeping the detainees at a fully authorised detention centre, quick production before a magistrate, financial aid for victim’s families, strengthening of the Commission on Enforced Disappearances and training of the police and intelligence personnel. It also called for ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance.
Yet, instead of acting on UN’s advice, the state amended and made new laws to extend the period of detention without trial and to keep the victims of enforced disappearances incommunicado. The internment centres, supposedly for holding detainees till they are tried in courts, have become the Guantanamo Bay-like prisons of Pakistan. No one knows how many are detained, since how long and on what charges.
About two years ago, the Senate unanimously made some half a dozen proposals to the government, including legislation to rein in the intelligence agencies. Under the rules the government should have, within 60 days, either accepted the unanimously adopted proposals, or come back with reasons why it cannot do so. In the past two years it did neither.
To begin with, the parliament must find answers to the questions arising out of startling confessions: that some missing persons indeed are in state custody and that those in state custody “are under legal process.”
Beans have been spilled officially, even if advertently. It is in the interest of the state to act promptly. Failure to do so is only reinforcing the perception that there are some rogue elements, more powerful than the parliament, the judiciary and the executive who have held the state and society hostage and also contemptuously disregard international concerns. Candour, unfortunately, permits no other judgment.
The writer is a former member of Senate Human Rights Committee
In a rare admission last Friday, the army spokesperson disclosed that some missing persons indeed were in the custody of agencies. “Not all missing persons were in the custody of the army” he said. He added: “Those with the state are under legal process.”
As further confirmation, he disclosed for the first time that a “special cell on missing persons had been established in the GHQ.” If there was any doubts as to who held the missing persons - the euphemism “not all missing persons” notwithstanding - these were removed.
That the disappeared indeed were in state custody had also become clear a week earlier. In the run up to voting on the budget, Akhtar Mengal, the head of BNP-M, and an ally of the government, declared that his party will withdraw its support if there was no progress on his six demands; the main demand being the recovery of those missing for years in Balochistan.
With fears that the budget could indeed be voted against, dozens of missing Balochs were recovered a day before the voting
With fears that the budget could indeed be voted against, dozens of missing Balochs were recovered a day before the voting. The state did not disclose who held them, for how long and under what charges. But their prompt recovery left little doubt as to who had held them. The beans had been spilled.
There was also the explosive - but little noticed - admission by the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances Justice Javed Iqbal during a briefing to the Senate Committee on human rights late last year.
Quoted from the official record of the proceedings (paragraph nine of the minutes of the meeting on August 28, 2018 at the Parliament House), Justice Iqbal said: “The Chairman Committee (Senator Mustafa Khokhar) inquired if any action had been initiated against those individuals who were thought to be involved in abducting people and depriving missing persons of their liberty. The Committee was apprised that action had been taken against 153 army personnel. The Chairman of the Commission added that the Parliament must take a lead role to address the issue of missing persons and should legislate to penalise enforced disappearances and missing persons. The Chairman Committee agreed and added that Section 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Pakistan Penal Code also needed to be amended.”
The Senate Committee meeting was not an in camera meeting. It was open to the media and the public. When later some journalists asked Justice Javed Iqbal to elaborate on the involvement of 153 personnel in enforced disappearances, he declined. For some unknown reasons, it also found no mention in the reports of the media the next day.
Last month, the UN Office of Human Rights also addressed a letter to the Foreign Office. Stating that “enforced disappearance is a human rights concern”, it recalled its urgings in the past and pleaded once again to address “the widespread phenomenon of enforced and involuntary disappearances.”
All this makes one thing clear: that by and large, the missing persons are held by the state. This also explains why the efforts thus far have centred around sporadic attempts under compulsion to recover the disappeared, and not to prevent disappearances, let alone punishing the culprits involved.
The debate, therefore, must now be shifted towards prevention of enforced disappearances that has been with us for more than quarter of a century, instead of focusing on merely the recovery of the missing.
To do so we need to recall the visit to Pakistan in 2012 of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (UNWGEID) and the suggestions it made.
It called for making enforced disappearance a new and autonomous crime in the Penal Code, keeping the detainees at a fully authorised detention centre, quick production before a magistrate, financial aid for victim’s families, strengthening of the Commission on Enforced Disappearances and training of the police and intelligence personnel. It also called for ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance.
Yet, instead of acting on UN’s advice, the state amended and made new laws to extend the period of detention without trial and to keep the victims of enforced disappearances incommunicado. The internment centres, supposedly for holding detainees till they are tried in courts, have become the Guantanamo Bay-like prisons of Pakistan. No one knows how many are detained, since how long and on what charges.
About two years ago, the Senate unanimously made some half a dozen proposals to the government, including legislation to rein in the intelligence agencies. Under the rules the government should have, within 60 days, either accepted the unanimously adopted proposals, or come back with reasons why it cannot do so. In the past two years it did neither.
To begin with, the parliament must find answers to the questions arising out of startling confessions: that some missing persons indeed are in state custody and that those in state custody “are under legal process.”
Beans have been spilled officially, even if advertently. It is in the interest of the state to act promptly. Failure to do so is only reinforcing the perception that there are some rogue elements, more powerful than the parliament, the judiciary and the executive who have held the state and society hostage and also contemptuously disregard international concerns. Candour, unfortunately, permits no other judgment.
The writer is a former member of Senate Human Rights Committee