Missing transparency

May 04, 2018

PARTIAL compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders has only intensified and increased the questions that have to be answered. On Wednesday, the federal government informed a three-member bench of the Supreme Court that is holding hearings on missing persons that 1,330 individuals are detained in internment centres set up under the Action in Aid of Civil Power Regulations, 2011, and a further 253 individuals have been released. If those bare numbers are confusing and do not shed much light on the issue of missing persons, it is perhaps by design on the government’s part. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal, set to retire later this week, has been demanding that the state share basic details on militancy and terrorism suspects held in internment centres. As the court itself has made clear, the state has a constitutional duty to declare who is in its custody, what are the individuals charged with and whether they have been put on trial. Such details are fundamental to the functioning of a lawful state; they become all the more necessary when relatives of missing persons move the courts in search of their family members.

Yet, the state once again failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders on Wednesday and the state has sought and been granted two weeks to furnish more details on the 1,330 individuals who are detained in internment centres. It is not clear how or why the state can declare the number of people held in internment centres, but not have information immediately available on the status of the legal process against them. A lawyer representing the families of missing persons suggested in court that the state’s strategy may be to buy as much time as it can and perhaps wait for the retirement of Justice Azfal. But as the soon-to-be-retired justice himself noted, there are two other justices on the bench who will continue to hold hearings. With regular retirements from and elevations to the Supreme Court, and the latter repeatedly returning to the issue of missing persons, it is clear that the state cannot simply hope for the matter to go away. Now that the government has acknowledged 1,330 individuals are detained in internment centres, it will have to share information on the status of legal proceedings against those individuals. Transparency is being resisted, but it is necessary and essential.

The Supreme Court, the families of missing persons and legal counsels have all made clear that in seeking details of those detained by the state, they are not trying to ensure the automatic release of such individuals. The fear that militants and terrorists may be summarily released is not only misplaced but mischievous too. The state is strengthened when it acts in a lawful manner and all detainees have the right to a fair trial.