Originally published by Dawn. Featured by South Asia Times (SAT) for informational purposes, with attribution to the original author and publisher.
The missing persons’ issue is not new. The post-Soviet political tumult in the world released the pent-up energy of ethnic and ideological conflicts that had lain dormant under the stabilising hold of totalitarianism.
Consequently, as armed conflicts amongst and within nations intensified, the number of missing persons remained high during the mid-1990s. An international commission for missing persons was established in 1996 to track and resolve the issue in Yugoslavia’s conflict. The commission’s mandate was expanded in 2003 to include the global issues of missing persons in various conflicts, natural disasters, and climate migrations.
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was signed in 2006, which defined enforced disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the state”. The treaty entered into force in 2010.
The missing persons issue got further traction with the rise of ideologically inspired waves of terrorism by organisations like Al Qaeda, IS and several others. UNSC resolutions 1267, 1998, and 2253 established a list of terrorist entities including Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and IS to sanction these along with their financiers. Despite these international efforts, the domestic legal options to deal with terrorist entities remained fragmented. As a consequence, the issue of missing persons was conflated with the issue of enforced disappearances.
Our low terrorism prosecution rate signals dysfunction.
It is difficult to separate voluntary and enforced disappearances globally. In Pakistan, a Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances was established in 2011 which has dealt with 10,947 missing persons’ cases throughout Pakistan and has resolved 9,447 (86 per cent) cases.
When judicial prosecution of hardened criminals becomes ineffective, it can create incentives for law-enforcement agencies to resort to vigilante justice. This can further create space for allegations of enforced disappearances where apprehension of terrorism suspects is not immediately followed by prosecution. Due care needs to be taken to sift cases of voluntary disappearances, crime-related arrests, and terrorism-related detentions. Differential legal treatment and prosecution are required to avoid a predilection for non-legal remedies on the part of LEAs. Pakistan’s low terrorism prosecution rate (8pc) over the past two decades, compared with 88pc in the UK, 99pc in China and 99.9pc in Japan, signals a dysfunctional prosecution system.
The inordinate delays in prosecution and conviction of terrorists create space for their political supporters to exploit legal gaps and build victimhood narratives. In Balochistan, terrorist organisations have spawned a fear psychosis by abducting judges in order to stymie the prosecution process. A few examples include the assassination of justice Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, former chief justice of Balochistan High Court in Kharan in 2022, and killing of district and sessions judge Abdul Hakeem Kaka in Mastung in July 2026.
The threat extends beyond judges, with around 50 CTD officials killed in Balochistan, while the driver of a law officer was shot when the officer was recording his statement concerning the July 2026 Ziarat terrorist attack in which 27 policemen were killed.
To tackle these challenges, the government has amended Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 through the insertion of Section 11-EEEE that provides for ‘Preventive Detention for Inquiry’, allowing detention for up to 90 days for inquiry, thereby providing a legal mechanism for investigating terrorism suspects by collecting evidence before moving to prosecute them.
The Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act, 2025, incorporates the amended ATA, 1997, to the province, enabling LEAs and the judiciary to detain the accused for 90 days, while Section 21-AAA of the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act, 2026, provides protection to judges and witnesses.
Since the implementation of the new law in Balochistan, out of 90 detainees, five have been released where the allegations could not be established, while 40 have been referred for trial through faceless courts, demonstrating movement from preventive detention towards prosecution through a defined legal process.
All the above measures show the government’s resolve to extend the full range of legal remedies to LEAs and the judiciary to arrest, investigate, and prosecute the terrorists, with celerity, and in accordance with the law, bringing much-needed transparency and fairness to the whole process.
Dr Raashid Wali Janjua
The writer is a defence and security expert with a PhD from NUST. He may be reached at [email protected]
