The conviction of Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Chattha for criticizing and questioning the action of the state is a travesty of justice

 

Absent State Accountability

By Zahid Hussain
Pakistan

Accountability is an essential component of a democratic and rules-based system. There is no such concept of responsibility under authoritarian rule, which seeks to consolidate power without being subjected to checks and balances. In such a situation, the entire political system is designed to serve the interests of a narrow power elite. Freedom of expression is stifled in the name of national interest.

This is what is happening in this country as the shadows of absolutism lengthen. In an effort to consolidate its power, the hybrid set-up has imposed several draconian laws to curb democratic rights and freedom of expression. The recent  conviction  of Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and her spouse, Hadi Ali Chattha, under the controversial Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca), 2016, appears to be a grim reminder that the country is slipping into an Orwellian nightmare.

The two lawyers-cum-human rights activists have been sentenced to a total of 17 years’ rigorous imprisonment for “tweeting and retweeting” some posts deemed by the authorities as seditious. According to the ruling, “The content, including tweets, re-tweets, shared and uploaded by the accused persons, expressed solidarity and support for the proscribed organizations”.

Mentioning X posts made by Imaan Mazari-Hazir in favor of Mahrang Baloch and the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, the order noted that several had been reposted by Hadi Ali Chattha. The two have also been accused of defaming the forces through their posts on social media. They have been charged under antiterrorism laws.

There are questions about the fairness of the trial. According to lawyers, the couple was not given an opportunity to defend themselves. They were  arrested  when they were on their way to a sessions court for a hearing of the case.

A young firebrand lawyer, Imaan Mazari-Hazir had taken up the cases of missing persons and had raised her voice against state excesses. She has been fighting for those who have been incarcerated for years without being charged. Though detained previously, clearly, she did not give in to intimidation. The government, whose mandate is widely questioned, seems threatened by any voice of dissent. The couple is the latest in the list of prisoners of conscience.

The ruling set-up has weaponized Peca, which criminalizes free comment, dealing a serious blow to whatever little democratic freedom is left. Even the private exchange of messages can be liable for prosecution. Criticism of state institutions is punishable under this draconian law, thus making the state and the government unaccountable.

The situation is such that Peca can be used against those who question the involvement of unelected state circles in politics. The defense minister has defended the hybrid power arrangement. But the question is whether there is any constitutional provision that lends legitimacy to such an arrangement. The political parties, which are part of the current set-up and who voted for the draconian laws, had, while in opposition, been critical of those involved in political manipulation and change of government. Now they are happy sharing power with them.

It gets worse, as there is little judicial recourse left after the  enforcement  of the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments. These controversial amendments have significantly undermined the independence of the superior judiciary, making it an extension of the executive. It has rendered the Constitution virtually ineffective, clearing the way for authoritarianism, which is not constrained by the rule of law or subjected to accountability through strong and independent institutions. Parliament is simply used to rubber-stamp the dictates of those beyond constitutional boundaries.

But all these actions are signs of weakness and insecurity in a system that seeks to earn legitimacy through enforcing laws aimed at silencing dissent. A repressive and authoritarian state loses credibility. It becomes weak, even if it has powerful instruments and agents of coercion. The use of hard power against its own people makes any state weaker. This is the lesson of history that officialdom has refused to learn.

The 27th Amendment grants the president and defense chiefs lifelong immunity from criminal proceedings; conversely, the rule of law in real democracies requires top state officials to be accountable to the public. Another recent example of the rulers and public representatives trying to make themselves unaccountable is the bill recently passed by the National Assembly, which aims to  conceal  the assets of lawmakers. All members of parliament are bound by the law to annually declare their assets to the Election Commission of Pakistan, the details of which are put on the election body’s website. This was meant to fulfil the requirement of transparency and allow the public access to information about their elected representatives. The practice was seen as part of the accountability exercise. But the bill has now stopped the ECP from putting the asset statement on the website. It may appear unimportant, but it reflects the mindset of our representatives to avoid any public accountability.

Defending the bill, the federal law minister contended that it empowers the legislative bodies to exercise greater control over the transparency of financial disclosures. One wonders what this controlled transparency means. The conviction of Imaan Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Chattha for criticizing and questioning the action of the state is a travesty of justice. It also exposes the weakness of the state in not being willing to face public scrutiny of its actions. To raise voice for the victims of state excesses is not an anti-state act. A state becomes strong not by usurping people’s fundamental rights but by allowing itself to be held accountable by those it claims to represent. What we are witnessing is an unaccountable state where power is exercised without any transparency, oversight, or liability.

(The writer is an author and journalist. Dawn)