How to prosecute terror

In 2023, the conviction rate for terrorism-related cases in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) was dismally low, reflecting several complex challenges which have to be addressed to overcome the root cause of terrorism that has led to long-term instability in the region.

Despite all the hardline measures the authorities have taken, the result of the court trials is still an indication of the limitations of our legal and procedural frameworks, impeding the path to justice. Understanding these issues is important to devising operative strategies to enhance the prosecution of terrorism cases in the region.

The entire procedure is challenged by the lack of substantial proof. The criminal investigation often faces problems such as insufficient evidence, largely because of the practice of old methods of evidence collection and the documentation of crime scenes. Many cases presented in the court are marred by either inadequate or improperly handled evidence. Either way, it inevitably leads to acquittals. The issues with evidence handling and presentation that give rise to such ineffective practices are highly indicative of the needed modification of the process.

Despite the existence of training institutes for preparing police personnel, they learn mainly on the job which leads to gaps in their knowledge and their intervention in modern investigative techniques. Proper and regular training programmes are vital to impart the police force with the necessary skills for better investigation of terrorism cases.

Spearheading training units inside the police, which are well-trained in handling terrorism cases, will upgrade the investigation standards of other cases also. Moreover, ensuring that these units are well-equipped with the latest technology and forensic tools is essential for building airtight cases against terrorists.

One of the main coordination issues that needs more development is the link between the security agencies and the police. Off-and-on collaborative efforts create situations where the evidence is broken and in court, it becomes difficult to make a coherent case. The chain of custody has gaps in it and suspects have given different dates for their detention; this way even the positioning of the prosecutor is further weakened.

The improvement of the relationship between different state or police department bodies is one of the keys to registering these cracks and establishing a more solid and consistent legal process. Their difference necessitates the existence of an uninterrupted data flow and information on the evidence presented by various agencies, to make a case.

The essence of accountability in the case of terrorism still operates as a significant obstacle to the witnesses and it remains a serious issue to the judicial system. Witnesses’ lives remain at risk and in some cases, people can be killed even before the trial starts. The climate of fear that prevails is a key factor that inhibits the due legal process, and the refusal or inability of witnesses to testify deprives the prosecution of vital firsthand accounts.

Expanding witness protection programmes is the most important thing here to ensure safety for those who come to the aid of justice. In KP, this area should not be underestimated. Ensuring that the witness protection programme is solid and kept confidential is a way to reduce the fear and make sure that justice is done.

The latest figures from 2014 to the present reveal a bleak situation. Out of 5,417 terrorism incidents, only 2,822 were prosecuted in court, whereas a significant 2,637 cases are still under investigation. Of the 6,747 suspected persons, only 486 had been proven guilty, which makes the conviction rate as low as 17.22 per cent.

It should be noted here that the criminal statistics mentioned above include some very serious crimes such as suicide bombings, IED blasts, improvised explosive device attacks, hand grenade attacks, assassinations, kidnappings for ransom, and the like. Moreover, areas that add to the difficulty include the non-existence of investigative culture and the authorities near the department such as the lack of willingness and guidance from the prosecution to the judges in the identification and subsequent formation of the examination of the case the judges have to do to see the cases through to the end.

The province’s Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) serves as the main force whose responsibility it is to handle terrorism cases yet it is often short of cultural skills and capacity which can make it the main reason behind incomplete and unsatisfactory investigations. The majority of the cases – 93 per cent – are still under investigation. The CTD needs to be invested with enough financial and human resources, training, and a plan to conduct fast investigations along with prosecution.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s legal fight against terrorism is a bundle of a range of problems, from the shortage of proof and procedural faults to coordination issues and judicial inefficiencies. The most fundamental part is the ATA amendment and it is supported by strengthening law enforcement through better training and resources, improved protection for witnesses and judicial reforms. By doing so, the region can have a chance to increase its conviction rates in terror cases.

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Strengthening legal institutions, improving security measures for judicial personnel and witnesses, enhancing evidence collection and presentation procedures, and ensuring the effective implementation of anti-terrorism laws are crucial steps.

Additionally, amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), improving prosecution strategies, and addressing issues in investigations and judiciary processes are necessary to increase the conviction rate in terrorism cases.

The writer is an advocate.