EDITORIAL: Pronouncing criticism of a government or its subordinate organisations as sedition — the crime of betraying one’s state — is inconceivable in any functioning democracy.
But in this country a colonial era law introduced in 1860 criminalising dissent to control the ‘subjects’ stayed on the statute book post-independence until this past March 30, when hearing a public interest petition Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court (LHC) issued a short order, striking down Section 124–A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) that said “whosoever by words, either spoken or by signs, or otherwise, attempts to bring into hatred or contempt the federal or provincial government” would be punishable with imprisonment for life or up to three years along with fine.
The present government has booked almost all major leaders of the main opposition party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), including its chairman Imran Khan, as well as some civil society activists for sedition.
It is a sad comment on the wisdom of the political class that the learned judge had to explicate in his detailed 48-page judgment, issued on Thursday, why loyalty to the State has to be distinguished from loyalty to the government.
Taking exception to three key words — contempt, hatred and disaffection — used in section 124-A, he wrote: “as human beings we are all susceptible to showing such emotions at some point or the other.” More to the point, he observed that the impugned section of the PPC demands allegiance and loyalty by all opposition parties, their members, the citizens and members of the press towards the federal or provincial governments of the day.
This means any political opponent (of the government) or a citizen having loyalty to a different group will, by necessary implication, be disloyal to the federal or provincial government in power, which “is antithetical to the very concept of democracy and constitutionalism”.
Yet intentionally or unintentionally, democratically- elected governments had continued to retain this draconian provision. Justice Karim also pointed out that section 124-A in its present form went against Article 19 of the Constitution related to press freedom that, he asserted, must not be abridged on the misplaced notion that the government of the day can suppress freedom of expression at will.
As regards the media, underhand measures, some subtle others crude, are also employed to prevent them from questioning the policies of government as well as certain other quarters.
The impugned section so brazenly seeks to suppress dissent that any challenge to the LHC’s verdict can end up in embarrassment. Another colonial relic, the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, liberally used to arrest political activists for participating in protest demonstration, also needs to be chucked out.
All laws must be brought in consonance with constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights. Furthermore, the government should refrain from filing terrorism cases against opposition leaders for exercising their democratic right to protest. Such practices incite rather than curb public anger.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.