Process becomes punishment

A STATE does not demonstrate its strength by the number of its critics it can imprison. Its strength is measured by its willingness to tolerate dissent, submit executive power to law and allow courts to protect even those whom the state considers troublesome. Pakistan today faces a troubling test on all three counts. The cases of Baloch activist Dr Mahrang Baloch and lawyers Imaan Mazari Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha are different in their facts and legal foundations. Yet, taken together with the treatment of political opponents and other dissenting voices, they raise a larger question: is the criminal justice system increasingly being used not merely to prosecute alleged offences, but to manage dissent? Mahrang Baloch emerged as a prominent voice against enforced disappearances and alleged ex­­t­rajudicial killings in Balochistan.

In June, an antiterrorism court sentenced her and another activist to life imprisonment in a case arising from the death of a security official during the 2024 Ba­­loch Raji Machi. Amnesty International criticised the proceedings as an expedited secret trial, stating that no direct evidence linking her to the violence had been presented. Her case has consequently become emblematic of wider concerns about due process and the treatment of Baloch dissent. The state is entitled — indeed obligated — to pro­­secute violence. Human rights advocacy or po­­litical activism cannot confer immunity from cri­minal law. But the converse is equally important: allegations of disloyalty or association with hostile organisations cannot substitute for evidence est­ablishing individual criminal responsibility. The graver the charge, the greater the need for transparent proceedings and scrupulous due process. Exceptional powers created against today’s adversary may…