Pakistan’s debate on missing persons often begins with an accusation and ends before the evidence is examined. The anguish of families deserves a compassionate response. So does the work of institutions investigating complaints, tracing individuals and assisting dependants. A fair assessment must recognise what the state has achieved while identifying what remains unresolved.
The available records deserve attention. Of 11,035 cases registered with the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances, 9,596 are classified as resolved, leaving 1,439 under investigation. This represents a reported resolution rate of approximately 87%. Different forms of case closure require explanation but this record challenges the portrayal of a government unwilling to address the issue.
The international picture provides context. In the United States, the FBI recorded 498,038 missing person entries in its National Crime Information Center during 2025. At year’s end 88,093 records remained active, including 21,487 involving children under 18. Annual entries are different from the number remaining missing.
Britain’s charity Missing People states in its 2026 research that approximately 170,000 people are reported missing annually in around 350,000 incidents, reflecting repeated episodes involving some individuals. Globally, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported more than 284,000 people registered as missing with the Family Links Network at the end of 2024, nearly 70% more than in 2019. The actual worldwide total was considerably higher.
These figures establish an international challenge. They cannot rank Pakistan’s performance because definitions, periods and mandates differ. Overseas cases do not diminish Pakistan’s responsibilities. They demonstrate why classification and evidence matter.
Pakistan’s provincial data merits attention. Balochistan accounts for 2,970 registered cases, of which 2,797 are described as resolved, approximately 94%. Sindh records 1,756 resolutions from 1,888 complaints, approximately 93%. Punjab records 1,633 from 1,820, close to 90%. These outcomes belong in any assessment of the institutional response.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has the largest registered caseload, with 3,849 complaints and 2,954 reported resolutions. Its 895 outstanding cases constitute approximately 62% of the national pending total. This concentration indicates where additional investigative resources could have the greatest impact.
Demographics provide essential context. Pakistan’s 2023 census recorded 241.49 million people, with 61.18% living in rural areas. It counted 62.58 million people aged 15 to 29. Investigating complaints across this large, young and dispersed population requires sustained cooperation between police, courts and government departments.
The distinction between a missing person and an enforced disappearance is fundamental. The international convention defines the latter through deprivation of liberty involving state agents, or those acting with state authorisation, support or acquiescence, followed by concealment of the person’s fate or whereabouts or refusal to acknowledge custody. A missing person complaint alone does not establish these elements.
Individuals can become untraceable through criminal abduction, irregular migration, family circumstances, recruitment by terrorist organisations or other causes. Cheepa and Edhi reported burying 34000 unidentified or uncliamed dead bodies. Each possibility requires investigation. Automatically attributing every disappearance to security agencies prejudges the evidence. Allegations against officials must also receive serious examination.
The government’s legislative response deserves consideration. The Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2025 amended Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, providing for preventive detention for inquiry for up to three months in specified circumstances. It requires recorded reasons and sufficient grounds where involvement is suspected. Covered offences include specified cases involving security, defence and public order, including targeted killing, kidnapping for ransom and extortion.
The amended section expressly subjects detention, including any further period beyond three months to Article 10 of the Constitution. Where armed forces or civil armed forces issue the detention order, a joint investigation team must conduct the inquiry, including a police officer of at least superintendent rank and relevant agency representatives. The amended subsections carry a three-year validity period from commencement of the 2025 Act.
These provisions can bring terrorism inquiries within an identifiable legal process. Recorded orders create decisions that authorities must account for. Their value depends on accurate custody records, compliance with constitutional safeguards and effective scrutiny. They provide investigative powers rather than a missing persons tracing remedy and cannot retrospectively legalise unlawful detention.
The prosecution stage also requires protection. Punjab’s Anti-Terrorism Amendment Act 2026 introduced Section 21AAA, establishing a mechanism for designated “special security cases”. Commonly described as faceless courts, this framework provides for concealing the identities of judges, prosecutors and witnesses, alongside other participants, to protect those involved in terrorism proceedings. Judicial orders use official titles, while witnesses can be identified through codes.
The policy rationale is compelling: terrorist organisations should not be able to derail prosecutions by threatening those administering justice. Identity protection can help safeguard judges from retaliation, prosecutors from intimidation and witnesses from attacks. Its implementation must preserve judicial independence and a meaningful opportunity for the defence to challenge evidence. Protection measures should strengthen the delivery of justice.
For the government, the connection is practical. Recorded detention, competent investigation and protected prosecution can help move terrorism suspects through a lawful process. Faceless court provisions address risks within that process; they do not themselves establish anyone’s whereabouts or resolve disappearance allegations.
The commission meanwhile provides a separate route for pursuing complaints through investigations, hearings and production orders. Clearer publication of outcomes would strengthen its standing. Returning home, being located in custody, being identified among the dead and having a complaint closed after scrutiny represent different results. Locating someone does not settle an allegation of unlawful treatment.
Government records cited in the supplied document also describe a Rs5 billion assistance package for an initial 1,000 eligible families, providing Rs5 million each. Official guidance specified support for families of individuals missing for more than five years, subject to NADRA verification of legal heirs. The 1,439 pending cases are not automatically equivalent to eligible households.
Further progress is achievable through linked police, prison, hospital and forensic records, remote hearings and accessible assistance for rural families. Public reporting on investigations and financial support would make government commitments measurable.
The government has grounds to defend its record. Reported case resolutions, financial assistance and legislative measures deserve recognition. Their credibility will grow through lawful implementation, reliable answers for families and sustained attention to outstanding cases. That, too, belongs in the story.
Amir Jahangir
The writer is a strategic communications expert, media executive, and policy adviser
