As mainstream political parties remain silent over the issue, the registration of police cases against leaders of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement has been criticised by rights activists and smaller progressive parties.
On Wednesday, the Human Rights Watch issued a strong reminder to the government that the right of peaceful assembly was guaranteed in Pakistan’s constitution, urging the government to drop police cases.
Speaking to Daily Times, HRW Pakistan representative Saroop Ijaz said, “The use of criminal cases to deal with political grievances is neither justified nor a sound strategy.”
Instead, he said, the government should hear the protesters and work towards finding a solution to their grievances. “The Pashtuns of FATA have displayed unflinching loyalty to the Pakistani state and they deserve to be engaged with and not blocked under colonial era criminal provisions. The acknowledgement of diverse voices will make Pakistan stronger.”
In its statement, the Awami Workers Party said the protesters were just using their inalienable right to freedom of assembly. “Instead of addressing to their grievances, the government is silencing them.”
The cases registered with SHOs as complainants in Zhob and Qila Saifullah accuse the PTM leaders, including 24-year-old Manzoor Pashteen, of violating sections 153 (provoking with the intent to cause riot) and 153a (causing enmity among groups).
When contacted, Zhob SHO said the cases were registered on directives from police higher ups. Asked what prompted the use of the two sections of the penal code, he said, “agencies and the GHQ were targeted in the speeches.”
Genesis of Sections 153 and 153-A:
Commenting on the legal history of the two sections, Advocate Umer Gillani said, “Section 153A is a broadly worded colonial era legislation with a sordid history of being used by the state against dissident political leadership. In 1957, a Pakistan court actually convicted a person no less eminent than Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan under this section.”
Gillani said the only saving grace in the section was that it allowed for fair criticism of past injustices by the government. “This provision is in line with the spirit of Article 19 of our Constitution which promises freedom of speech to all citizens,” he added.
“A holistic reading of our Constitution tells us that citizens have a right to dissect past injustices committed against various groups by state officials as well as to preach and propagate political course correction. This is a fundamental right, and I hope the courts will not allow it to be trumped by a disjointed and draconian interpretation of Section 153-A of our penal code.”
