Sahiwal confusion

As we await the publication of the Joint Investigation Team’s report into the Sahiwal incident in which four people, including a teenage girl, were killed by the Counter Terrorism Department, public statements by government officials are leaving the impression that a cover-up may be in progress. The JIT report has been presented to Prime Minister Imran Khan but its details have not been made available yet. Punjab Law Minister Muhammad Basharat Raja, however, has over the course of two days made baffling statements to the media about the report. He admitted that the JIT report did not find that the family killed in the ‘encounter’ had any links to terror groups and that officials of the CTD were being held responsible for their murder. At the same time, he said that the information-based operation was 100 percent correct. It is a bit difficult to reconcile these two rather divergent statements. To the extent that there is blame to be apportioned based on what we know so far, there are plenty of actors who need to be held accountable. Certainly, the CTD officials who shot dead four people in apparent cold blood should be tried and punished. But this is a state-wide failure and the buck needs to stop with the government.

We need to find out who initiated and approved the operation. There also needs to be more clarity about when and to what extent law-enforcement officials are allowed to use lethal force. Based on what we have seen so far, it seems as if it is acceptable to kill first and ask questions later so long as those killed are believed to be terrorists. The norm for use of force should be whether the suspects pose an imminent threat to the police or the public. There are laws and a judicial system for dealing with terrorism. For the CTD to take the law into its own hands essentially means those laws are nullified.

The Sahiwal operation’s consequences cannot be justified, which is possibly why there have been arrests, suspensions and transfers of so many officials. But there is a fear that this may have been done only to quell anger and that there may not be sufficient follow-through. We have already seen in the prolonged Rao Anwar case how the terrorism menace was invoked to kill an innocent man and how the culprit still seems to enjoy the patronage of influential actors. The same cannot be allowed to happen again if rule of law is to hold any meaning.