The Shadow of Impunity: Understanding Extrajudicial Killings in Pakistan

Hamza Ahmed is a final-year law student at the University of London International Programmes. He has interned at leading law firms and human rights organizations, including Haidermota & Co, Mandviwalla & Zafar, and the Centre for Human Rights.

In Pakistan, the pervasive practice of extrajudicial killings constitutes a major threat to the fundamental principles of human rights and justice. Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistanprohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, providing that no one should be deprived of life “save in accordance with law”. Thus, any deliberate executions carried out by a State actor without due recourse to the relevant legal process constitutes an extrajudicial killing. Such unlawful executions could be explicitly ordered by the State or be carried out by other actors with State’s complicity. The constitutional protection of the right to life is predicated upon Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Pakistan is a signatory. Additionally, Pakistan’s non-derogable international commitments under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obligate it to prevent arbitrary killings.  Extrajudicial executions in Pakistan are nevertheless performed by law enforcement and security agencies as a counterinsurgency and counterterrorism tool against suspected criminals. In certain instances, these can also target marginalised groups, such as ethnic minorities. 

By bypassing the legal framework and negating due process of law, extrajudicial executions also infringe upon the right to fair trial, enshrined in Article 10 of UDHR and Article 10A of Pakistan’s Constitution. The consequences of extrajudicial killings carried out with impunity are dire; the rule of law is dismantled, human rights abuses are rampant, and government authorities are perceived as above the law. This blog post seeks to illuminate the intricacies and repercussions of extrajudicial killings within the Pakistani legal and social-political terrain. It surveys the existing literature in this field and specifically analyses the unlawful use of extrajudicial killings as a law enforcement tool in Pakistan. By discussing notable cases, this writing tries to enhance understanding of this acute problem, stresses on the need to uphold principles of rule of law and accountability, and suggests possible measures to upend this pernicious practice and promote human rights advocacy. 

Case Studies and Impact on Society

Extrajudicial killing is an essential component of Pakistan’s law enforcement apparatus. Punjab Police’s 544 police encounters from 2018 to 2022, causing 612 accused’s deaths, are a demonstration of this. Police encounters or encounter killing is one form in which extrajudicial executions manifest in Pakistan. Common in South Asia, encounter killings involve police or armed forces allegedly shooting suspects in self-defence or while preventing escapes. Though some cases may be legitimate, staged police encounters are conventionally the modus operandifor extrajudicial executions. 

Numerous prominent instances of alleged police encounters in Pakistan have provoked a debate on extrajudicial killings as a major issue both domestically and in the international arena. In 2018, the Sindh police murdered Naqeebullah Mehsud, an aspiring model and a textile factory worker from erstwhile FATA, along with three others. Though police described it as self-defence in a raid on Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) hideout, it could not establish a link between TTP and Naqeebullah. Mehsud’s family and the TTP denied that the 27-year-old belonged to the group and the Police could not establish any link between the Naqeebullah and TTP. Naqeebullah’s murder sparked countrywide protests and a demand for justice. This was not an isolated case, rather ethnic discrimination characterized the divide between the perpetrators and the victim. The element of discrimination is striking because of Naqeebullah’s Pashtun descent — a community which has long been racially profiled as terrorists and insurgents and subjected to police brutality in Pakistan. This case exposed the longstanding unlawful police excesses against individuals from certain ethnic or communal backgrounds. Such violent executions carried out with impunity do not merely hold tragic outcomes for victims and their families, but also trigger lasting reverberations by undermining public faith in law enforcement and the justice system.

Balaach Mola Baksh’s case is another reflector of the prevalent deep-rooted problems in law enforcement. In October 2023, suspected law enforcement officials, dressed in civilian clothes, abducted Balaach from his home in Turbat. After a month of complaints and protests, he was eventually presented in a court, but was reported to have been killed in custody two days later. The same modus operandi of encounter killings is patent here, as the provincial Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) alleged Balaach to be involved in terrorism, and having died in crossfire during an operation against insurgents he had identified. Signs of racial profiling and use of extrajudicial executions as a counterinsurgency tool exhibit in Balaach’s case too. As with Naqeebullah, Balaach’s extrajudicial killing unveils excessive use of excessive police force as a systemic counterinsurgency measure against ethnic minorities, particularly from areas historically marred by insurgency. History of extrajudicial killings and violence in Balochistan is evidenced by an alleged 504 extrajudicial executions in the province in 2023 alone.

Following the alleged murder, family members of Balaach and civil society members from Balochistan marched towards Islamabad with demonstrations headed by Dr. Maharang Baloch, a Baloch human rights activist. This large-scale protest owes its importance to being primarily organized by women who had lost their male family members to the alleged enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. This sheds light on the indelible impact of unlawful killings on affected families, while also showcasing women’s strength in demanding justice for their deceased family members. Through such protests, women question traditional gender and power dynamics and highlight abused rights of the Baloch community. Concurrent to the protests against Balaach’s extralegal execution, the Islamabad High Court reviewed enforced disappearances of fifty Baloch students in a case before it. Missing Baloch students and the Balaach case are interconnected within the overall context of Baloch persecution through enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Both cases depict use of illegal law enforcement tools to systemically suppress Baloch activists. Students’ enforced disappearances in view of protests and symbolic cases such as that of Balaach contribute to the narrative of state-sanctioned suppression of Baloch voices. Connection of these instances was also highlighted by Justice Mohsin Akhtar’s remark in the missing Baloch students case, where he pointed out that the ultimate liability falls on the state for such unlawful disappearances, and by extension, killings. Thus, underscoring the need for accountability of those employing extralegal mechanisms that result in human rights abuses.

The reality of extrajudicial killings, as illustrated by Balaach’s case, raises a number of questions concerning accountability, the rule of law, and the mechanisms that guard people against abuse of power. These cases raise questions about weaknesses in the justice system when it comes to the prosecution of alleged perpetrators, such as the CTD. The authorities’ inability to ensure justice for the abuses gives a green light to perpetrate extrajudicial killings and employ similar instruments, which further undermine the people’s confidence in state institutions, especially in cases involving ethnic minorities. Lack of proper prosecution in such cases is a clear indication of a problem rooted in the state’s nature in relation to human rights; where the structures meant to encourage a responsible use of power are either inefficient or purposefully overlooked. Naqeebullah and Balaach’s cases act as a poignant reminder of the need for legal reforms and procedures that would ultimately result in establishment of oversight frameworks through which law enforcement agencies in Pakistan begin to adhere to the limits prescribed by law and develop regard for human rights.

Extrajudicial Killings under Pakistan’s Constitution

Extrajudicial executions continue despite patently violating the right to life under Article 9. Such a state of affairs has serious implications on the legal protections afforded to citizens in Pakistan and raises questions and doubts about the rule of law in the country. The right to life under Article 9 has been a topic of considered discourse in Pakistan’s jurisprudence in the context of extrajudicial killings.

“The police cannot be granted the authority of eliminating the citizens at their whims in violation of Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law.” This excerpt from Lahore High Court’s Noor Mohammad v. SHO Police Station Klur Kot (2000 YLR 85) raises relevant issues for the discussion of misuse of power by the police and its impact on the rule of law in Pakistan. The court categorically rejects the legality of extrajudicial killings by the police, stating that it violates Article 9 of the Constitution. The judgment scrutinizes political impunity in backing extralegal killings, recognising that it defeats the tenets of rule of law and instills fear and a feeling of deprivation among the citizens. Finally, the case presents a clear message about the risks associated with the extralegal actions by law enforcement agencies and highlights the need to re-think practices that erode public confidence and contribute to the current state of lawlessness in the country.

In Muhammad Yousaf v. Inspector General of Police (PLD 1997 Lahore 135), the Lahore High Court observed: “[e]xtra-judicial killing conducted by the police is highly condemnable because it adversely affects faith in the system. It is not only violative of law but also a brutal and inhuman act on the part of the police.” The choice of words used in the judgment are quite telling, as the court identifies the extrajudicial executions not only as unlawful but also as brutal and inhuman. Court emphasizes on the societal impact of extrajudicial killings, noting that with abuse of law by the law enforcers themselves, the entire legal system is undermined. This judgment reflects as a reminder for law enforcement officers of the need to follow requisite legal procedures in order to ensure that the society and the community at large holds the government and its institutions in high esteem, as far as the upholding of the rule of law is concerned.

Therefore, taking into consideration the above arguments it can be concluded that the prevailing legal system of Pakistan is based on certain principles. To begin with, an unlawful killing by a law enforcement officer without adhering to due process is an act of extrajudicial killing. This happens by circumventing the legal process, which otherwise provides for a fair trial. Any such actions are against fundamental rights guaranteed by Pakistan’s Constitution; thus, they are extrajudicial as well as unlawful. Secondly, a police officer cannot be allowed to use his sense of justice to deprive someone of his life, thereby playing the roles of a judge and an executioner. Such measures undisputedly infringe the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution, and support the view that following established legal procedure is necessary for protecting constitutional rights.

Despite constituting a clear violation of fundamental rights and commitments to end such practices, extrajudicial killings continue in the form of encounters by the Counter Terrorism Department and police in Pakistan. Examinations of extrajudicial killings are rare, and when they occur, often do not lead to convictions. In the Naqeebullah murder case, for example, the Anti-Terrorism Court acquitted the main accused, Rao Anwar and seventeen others. Similarly, in Sarfraz Shah’s case, who Pakistan Rangers murdered assuming he was a robber, the perpetrators were given presidential pardon after initially being sentenced to life imprisonment. The problem and concomitant impunity is fundamentally rooted in the police apparatus, which Pakistan inherited from British India following independence. Created primarily to maintain order among the colonial subcontinent’s populace, the police department’s formation was evidently not intended for upholding equal rights of the people. Police’s structure in Pakistan remains colonial and retains some of the vices of the previous order, which are inconsonant with democratic values. Until the police force’s character is substantively transformed to incorporate adherence to legal procedures, principles of justice and democratic rights of citizens cannot be upheld.

Potential Reforms

Amnesty International maintains that the government’s responsibility persists even when extrajudicial executions are committed by armed opposition groups, such as insurgents and terrorists. Amnesty International has drawn up a 14-Point Program for the Prevention of Extrajudicial Killings, as a way to address this and to prompt governments and individuals to work together to eliminate extralegal executions. The program suggests multifaceted strategies of control, accountability, and redress with emphasis on government accountability and international cooperation. The first point of the program emphasises on unambiguous condemnation by the government on extrajudicial executions, delineating a zero-tolerance policy for extrajudicial killings. In Pakistan, such government condemnations are rare and any statements that are made by government officials are not followed by tangible action. Across the board government condemnation, therefore, demands that it is not merely lip service or hackneyed political speeches, rather law enforcement agencies are specifically discouraged from using extrajudicial killings as a law enforcement strategy. 

One key point of the program is the “prohibition in law” for extralegal killings. Presently, the legal framework in Pakistan does not explicitly criminalize extrajudicial executions. In cases of alleged staged encounter killings, law enforcement officers are charged for ordinary murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC). Murder under the PPC is a compoundable offence, entailing that it is recognised as a private matter between the alleged perpetrator and the heirs of the victim. And the two parties can reach a compromise, whereby the heirs forgive the perpetrator. This allows law enforcement agencies to coerce heirs of the victim to compromise, resulting in no conviction for the accused. Making murder a non-compoundable offence generally or distinctly recognising extrajudicial killings as non-compoundable form of murder could result in more convictions and consequent deterrence. However, any such amendments to the PPC or a special law will carry its own challenges. Given the entrenched utility of extrajudicial executions to the law enforcement apparatus, attempts to deter the practice will likely be impeded. The obstacles encountered with the Missing persons bill demonstrate that the current political climate renders the enactment of a special law or a PPC amendment concerning extrajudicial killings practically undoable. 

Another important point of the 14-Point Program is investigations of extrajudicial killings. Investigations in Pakistan are often marred by influence from other power players, specifically the military establishment and the political leadership. There is little scope for independent investigations, and even in cases when they are carried out, the recommendations are hardly ever enforced. Despite this the program includes protection mechanisms for victims and recourse for families and goes beyond national borders whereby the global community must be truly responsible and take the initiative towards preventing such acts. Amnesty International’s action plan is not only a model for eradicating extrajudicial executions, but also an invite to strengthen international collaboration for preventing human rights abuses caused by extralegal executions.

The assignment of addressing extrajudicial killings in Pakistan is, to a great extent, a challenging task. However, it is not an impossible goal to achieve. Curbing these types of behavior involves a comprehensive and multifaceted effort, which encompasses not only the direct actors but the wider societal and international environments that are affected by the same and influence such practice. Hence, this matter of extrajudicial killings can be resolved through the joint efforts of the Pakistani people. It is their resilience, their thirst for justice, and their loyalty to justice and human rights that will ultimately be the deciding factor that leads the country towards a future where law and order will be upheld above the violence. Nevertheless, there are indications of a changing narrative, as with large-scale protests after Naqeebullah Mehsud and Balaach’s murders, which brought the issue of extralegal killings into public discourse. Perhaps this growing public awakening and demand for justice could be useful in combating the lawlessness that accompanies such acts, thus leading to the call for change in the legal framework and strengthening the rule of law in Pakistan. In summary, the elimination of extrajudicial killings in Pakistan is not just a judicial or political concern but a moral issue involving everyone in the nation to take a holistic and collaborative approach. Through a progressive approach that is based on principles of justice, accountability, and human rights, Pakistan not only stands to solve the problem of extrajudicial killings in the short run but also lays the foundation for a lasting peace. This road is full of difficulties but, with us walking it together with unnerving determination, we will be taken to the future where equality triumphs and disparity is the past.

Disclaimer: Any and all opinions and views represented in this blog are personal and belong solely to the author(s) of the blog and do not represent the opinions or views of the Centre for Human Rights.