ISLAMABAD: The controversial Protection of Pakistan Bill came under fire at a public forum on Thursday with a PPP lawmaker terming it an attempt to legitimise extra judicial killings and enforced disappearances in the absence of any safeguards against its misuse.

Even the allies of the ruling PML-N opposed the proposed legislation and warned that the law, which they said was more stringent than the notorious terrorist and disruptive activity (TADA) preventive act of India, would breed resentment among the citizens and undermine national security.

The public forum on “Protection of Pakistan Bill 2014” was organised by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat).

The participants observed that the law had the potential of being widely misused to victimise politicians and other segments of society.

They said it was also in violation of a judgment of the Supreme Court in which the court had struck down the provision of “shoot at sight” powers given to the police under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

The speakers also expressed concern over the powers proposed to be given to the law enforcement agencies to enter the house of any suspect without warrants and keep him under detention for 90 days.

They said every civilised criminal system proceeded on the basis that a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the proposed law surprisingly places the burden of proving innocence on the suspect.

Senator Farhatullah Babar of the PPP said giving powers to some individuals or institutions in complete exclusion of accountability would sound alarm bells.

He observed that the law was silent about the people who used Pakistan’s soil for terrorism abroad which led to terrorism inside Pakistan.

“First of all, you need to identify the enemies of Pakistan. Those using Pakistan’s soil for terrorist activities in other countries have been provided protection under the controversial law.”

He said the powers given to law enforcement agencies to fire upon people on the basis of suspicion was tantamount to sanctioning extra-judicial killings while the powers to keep a ‘suspect’ under detention for 90 days was nothing short of legitimising enforced disappearances.

He said the law would be applicable to those who committed a ‘crime’ falling under the scheduled offences before the passage of the law, though the word ‘retrospective’ had not been used.

“It means the law would be applicable to thousands of missing persons and there would be no compensation for any excesses against them.”

Senator Babar expressed surprise that under the proposed law special courts were to be headed by military officers.

He noted that the military establishment was gradually encroaching upon the areas which fall in the domain of civilian authority.

Hafiz Hamdullah of JUI (F) said despite being an ally of the PML-N government, his party was openly opposed to the ordinance. He feared that the law would be selectively applied to victimise different segments of society, including politicians and religious leaders, specifically in KP, Fata, Balochistan and Karachi.

Mir Hasil Bizenjo of the National Party (NP), another ally of the ruling PML-N, said there should have been an all parties’ conference on the proposed law.

He said if the law was meant to deal with the extraordinary challenges, it should remain in force for a limited time and must not hold the field for good.

He said security and intelligence agencies had the record of misusing their powers and at times had been accused of patronising terrorists.

Shahryar Afridi of the PTI termed the ordinance a mini-martial law and stressed it was against the spirit of the 1973 constitution and the human rights framework.

Mohammad Ali Khan, MNA, of the PTI said the ‘shoot at sight’ provision was against a judgment of the apex court. He recalled that the provision was there in 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act and was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1999. He said the PPO would give rise to terrorism instead of helping contain the menace.

Senator Syed Zafar Ali Shah of the PML-N said the bill had not yet become an act of the parliament. “If the constitution can be amended, a simple law can also be modified and any loopholes in it removed.” He said the provision of arrest without warrants was already there in the law.

Barrister Ali Zafar described the criticism of the bill a result of lack legal understanding and said the 90-day detention period was a standard across the world. He said this was not the time to suspect that the law would be misused.