Jinnah Institute Research. Advocacy. Outreach.

The News on Sunday’s Alefia T. Hussain interviews Sherry Rehman, PPP MNA and President of the Jinnah Institute.

The News on Sunday: Why amendments. Why haven’t you proposed repeal of these laws? Do you think the time for repeal has not yet come and conditions are not yet conducive?

Sherry Rehman: My experience with repeal bills such as the hudood ordinances law that I moved in the last assembly is that there is no appetite for it in the NA and especially in the Senate. What happens then is that the bill never makes it to Standing Committee. I personally believe that the repeal option is still the best one, but the hudood amendments still give serious relief to thousands of women who are no longer every year in lock-up because of a bad law.

The blasphemy laws have been rendered even more controversial by loading its removal with disrespect for religion, which is absolutely not the case. In fact, we need wider literacy on these laws, as they misuse Islam’s name as well as the Prophet, upon him be peace, who had no tolerance at all for injustice. The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) would have fought virulently against having his name associated with either intolerance or injustice. History is replete with cases which testify to this position, and quoting one hadith against a body of dozens against does not make any tradition the foundation for law.

In Islam, as in any other system of jurisprudence, law is made on the rule, the norm, not on exceptions plucked out to deter parliament from making just laws. The current debate on these laws is unfortunately framed in polarised terms by the religious right, which sees this whole issue as an encroachment on its political veto on religious discourse on Pakistan. When we seek to reform laws that misuse Islam, they tend to stand in the way because for them it represents a dangerous trend where the once silent majority in Pakistan starts appropriating religion for progressive reform, which breaks their monopoly on religious discourse.

TNS: Critics think that your bill inserts the much needed words "Whoever maliciously, deliberately and intentionally" but ignores the equally dangerous phrases that whoever "by words….or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly…". This has the potential of being misused. Do you think there is a possibility of an improvement in the bill on this count?

SR: All laws are works in progress and can be amended by majority opinion at Committee stage, or by a simple amendment in the PPC and CrPC.

TNS: Would you like to explain the procedural improvements that your bill proposes to do? Has the experience of similar improvements in hadd cases during the Musharraf government improved the situation on ground?

SR: My bill seeks to remove the death penalty as well as reduce sentences for blasphemy, as is the case in many other countries. This is not perfect, but statistics show that lower penalties act as strong deterrents to misuse of laws for settling scores or property disputes, so we seek to remove the incentive for such crimes that have grown exponentially since General Ziaul Haq brought in the death penalty.

The second change is to do with bringing back the proof of intent and premeditation, which is always central to criminal law. This would ensure that all those accused of blasphemy will not just be tried on the basis of trumped-up evidence and complicity or paid prosecution witnesses. The accuser will have to prove that the accused blasphemed with the intention of doing so.

The third change will require all such cases to be tried at the High Courts, even though Sessions Courts may take cognizance of offences. This has been done to prevent miscarriages of justice, particularly since these courts are under higher public scrutiny.

Lastly, two changes have been made to add clauses to the PPC which penalise anyone making false accusations under Sections 295 A, 295 B, and C, while advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or violence has been made an offense punishable under the law.

TNS: A Criminal Law Amendment in 2004 made it mandatory for the investigation of charge under 295C to be carried out by SP rank Police officer. That procedural change does not seem to have made a visible change as shown in Aasia Masih’s case. You propose to adopt High Court as a forum of trial for some of the offences (including 295-C). Why do you think it will reduce abuse of the laws?

SR: The Higher Courts in Pakistan have a history of reversing harsh sentences under the hadd laws as well as the blasphemy laws, which is why we have had no executions under any of these. I hope this tradition of more vigilance at the High Courts will help prevent miscarriages of justice. High Courts know that the next court of appeal is the Supreme Court, where justice delivery is under serious public scrutiny.

TNS: Don’t you think a procedural amendment to the effect that only direct witnesses should be allowed to lodge an FIR should have been included in the bill?

SR: Direct witnesses too have been complicit in accusing the innocent. But by no means am I suggesting that this is a perfect law, or that further changes cannot yet be brought in it. All suggestions that serve justice are welcome.

TNS: Uncorroborated indirect and hearsay evidence has been relied upon in handing out death punishment in some cases. What changes could be introduced to the law of evidence in cases registered under any of the blasphemy laws?

SR: It may not be easy to implement, but the law must punish false accusers. The absence of such a law provides for impunity to offenders.

TNS: Does the private member’s bill have the tacit approval of the government or is it your individual initiative?

SR: All private members’ bills can be taken up by the relevant standing committees, where the government is in majority. Given that Benazir Bhutto had always spoken of providing relief to the vulnerable, especially the minorities of Pakistan, I assume it will have more than tacit approval. She had also spoken to me and Shahbaz Bhatti about reform in these laws, which is why I have done work on the subject for some time. I also very clearly hear the president directing the Minister for Minorities to look into amending these laws, and he has committed to them. The PM also said a committee should immediately look into these laws, right after the Gojra incident.

Source: The News