Pakistan's New Detention Law Presumes Baloch Citizens Guilty of Terrorism Until Proven Innocent
Last month, the assembly of Pakistan's Balochistan province passed the controversial Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act, 2025, giving security forces in the restive region the powers to detain any person for up to three months without charging them. The amendment also provides for the establishment of detention centers and allows the handover of detainees to any law enforcement agency for investigation. This law is being widely seen as another measure to suppress dissent and tantamount to legalizing enforced disappearances in Balochistan — a region where this practice is already rampant.
According to the new section inserted into the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act, the armed forces, civil armed forces, and intelligence agencies can detain any person on mere suspicion or allegation of involvement in any offence scheduled under the act. During the course of the inquiry, the officer in charge will have all powers relating to search, arrest, and seizure of property and other materials relevant to the alleged offence. The oversight boards proposed in the act would also assess the 'ideological disposition' and 'psychological condition' of each detainee and recommend transfer to a detention center when 'necessary.' Authorities would exercise these powers based on their presumption and discretion, without judicial oversight. The new law will be valid for six years, extendable for a further period of two years through a notification by the provincial government.
Balochistan is Pakistan's largest and least populated province; it is resource-rich, yet remains the country's most impoverished region. It has long remained a hotbed of political unrest, armed conflict, and human rights abuses, including enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The conflict between the Baloch nationalists demanding self-rule and the Pakistani regimes striving for exclusive control over the region has continued since the inception of Pakistan, with the fifth and longest insurgency ongoing for about two decades now.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has expressed its concern on the adoption of the Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act, 2025, terming the grant of 'sweeping powers of preventive detention' as 'an unacceptable measure that undermines the fundamental rights to liberty, due process and protection from arbitrary arrest.'
The Balochistan Bar Council has rejected the amendment in the Anti-Terrorism Act, declaring it contrary to the constitution of Pakistan and in violation of human rights.
The Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, an organization representing the families of the victims of enforced disappearances, has rejected the new law, alleging that it protects extra-constitutional and illegal actions.
Earlier, in September 2024, the central government was planning to give special powers to its security forces in Balochistan, including the power of preventive detention and the establishment of internment centers for this purpose. In this regard, on November 1, the government introduced an amendment bill to the country's 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act to empower the security forces to detain anyone suspected of posing a 'significant threat to national security' for up to three months. The deputy speaker of the National Assembly (the lower house of Pakistan's parliament) referred the bill to the Standing Committee on Interior for consideration. The bill drew sharp criticism from civil society for the potential violation of fundamental rights and misuse against political rivals.
The HRCP had opposed the proposed legislation to grant the authority of preventive detention to the security forces, calling it similar to 'legalizing the use of enforced disappearances and internment centers.'
Amnesty International had also expressed grave concerns about the proposed amendment, urging the concerned ministry and standing committees to 'halt plans to pass the Anti-Terrorism Act Amendment Bill 2024 as it does not comply with international human rights law and standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).'
Similarly, United Nations human rights experts also urged the government of Pakistan to reconsider the proposed amendments, warning of the risk of 'arbitrary deprivation of liberty.' They also expressed concern about the establishment of detention centers in Balochistan, stating that the 'proposed new internment centers for terrorism suspects in Balochistan could also lead to gross human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture.'
While the proposed legislation remains pending in the National Assembly, the Balochistan government, which many observers describe as a proxy of Pakistan's powerful military establishment, introduced the Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act, 2025, in the provincial assembly of Balochistan on May 26, 2025, which was then referred to the Standing Committee on Home. Subsequently, the provincial assembly swiftly approved the bill on June 4, 2025, in less than 30 minutes. It is likely that to avert criticism on the matter, Islamabad tasked its puppet administration in Balochistan to pass the proposed legislation in the provincial assembly, yet again confirming its rubber-stamp status.
The chief minister of Balochistan declared the amendment a milestone that would end the issue of missing persons once and for all. However, he did not elaborate on how it would address the issue, since he claims that security forces and intelligence agencies are not involved in forced disappearances and declares the issue a 'propaganda tool' against the state of Pakistan. If the security forces are not carrying out enforced disappearances, then how would their empowerment to carry out preventive detention and the establishment of internment centers resolve the problem?
The security situation and human rights conditions in Balochistan continue to deteriorate. There has been a surge in militant activities during the last few years. The Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) reported an 84 percent increase in militant attacks in Balochistan in 2024 compared with 2023. On the other hand, the state's response to the insurgency encompasses widespread human rights violations, including enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. According to the Human Rights Council of Balochistan, there were 603 reported cases of enforced disappearances in Balochistan in 2024.
Moreover, Islamabad also uses force to suppress the voices that advocate for the rights of the Baloch people. It systematically marginalizes such groups to prevent them from entering the political mainstream. The center installs puppet governments in Balochistan through a combination of electoral manipulation and political engineering, making the security establishment the key power broker. Over the decades, Islamabad has introduced a comprehensive framework of extractive institutions in Balochistan that ensures maximum economic benefits for the center while keeping the province impoverished and dependent. As a result, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and extrajudicial killings have become instruments of national policy to counter the insurgency, curb political dissent and perpetuate economic exploitation of this resource-rich region.
According to a Pakistani journalist, a senior government official confessed in front of her that 'they [the government] do not have any writ in the province [Balochistan] and there is no other tool except 'missing persons' [enforced disappearances] to handle this situation.'
The space for political dissent, rights activism, and peaceful protest is shrinking rapidly in Balochistan. The government has already put the names of hundreds of people from all walks of life into the Fourth Schedule (proscribed persons). Authorities have arbitrarily detained several leading human rights defenders and political activists. The move to empower the security forces with powers of preventive detention reveals the government's intention to intensify and provide legal cover for the crackdown on dissidents and rights activists in Balochistan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Thailand Again Accuses Cambodia of Laying Fresh Landmines Along Disputed Border
The country's military claims that three soldiers were injured in a landmine explosion on Saturday, the third in recent weeks. Thailand has again accused the Cambodian military of laying fresh landmines along the two countries' shared border, drawing another angry denial from Phnom Penh. The Royal Thai Army (RTA) claimed that three Thai soldiers were injured by a landmine while patrolling an area between Thailand's Sisaket province and Cambodia's Preah Vihear province on Saturday. One soldier lost a foot and the other two were injured in the explosion. RTA spokesperson Maj. Gen. Winthai Suwaree claimed that the area had previously been cleared by the Thai humanitarian mine action unit, accusing Cambodia of deliberately laying the mines, adding that the act was 'dishonorable, lacks the dignity of a soldier, and constitutes a deliberate violation of the Ottawa Convention.' In a statement, the Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority denied the Thai army's accusation. 'Cambodia's position is unequivocal: We have not, and will not, plant new landmines,' it stated. 'Cambodia is a proud State Party to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention [the Ottawa Convention], which it ratified in 1999, and has an internationally recognized record of removing, not deploying, these indiscriminate weapons.' A similar denial was also issued by the country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The blast came just two days after the two nations' General Border Committee agreed to a 13-point plan to maintain the ceasefire that was declared on July 28, after five days of fierce clashes along the border, which killed at least 43 people and displaced more than 300,000 on both sides of the border. This involved a mutual pledge to freeze border troop movements and patrols, not to reinforce their positions along the border, and 'not to undertake provocative actions that may escalate tensions.' The blast followed two similar landmine explosions reported by the Thai military, which contributed to the outbreak of hostilities last month. The first took place on July 16 in the eastern sector of the border, when three Thai soldiers were wounded after one stepped on a landmine and lost a foot, after which the Thai army said that it had found that 10 freshly laid Russian-made PMN-2 anti-personnel mines in areas along the border, the same time that the Thai army alleges was involved in Saturday's explosion. A second blast on July 23, which injured five soldiers, one of whom lost his right leg, prompted Thailand to downgrade its diplomatic relations with Cambodia, a move that precipitated the outbreak of fighting on July 24. On both occasions, Cambodia denied laying fresh mines, arguing that the Thai soldiers had strayed from previously agreed patrol routes and stumbled across landmines that were laid during the country's long civil war in the 1980s and 1990s. The exchange of angry statements hints at the level of mistrust and tension that persists between the two sides, despite last week's ceasefire agreement. Politicians and military officials on both sides continue to engage in tit-for-tat statements and accusations that continue to raise the prospect of a resumption of fighting. In comments to the press yesterday, Lt. Gen. Boonsin Padklang, the head of Thailand's Second Army Region, vowed to recapture Prasat Ta Kwai (Prasat Ta Krabei in Khmer), one of three temples that are at the center of the current dispute. He added that the Thai army had now closed Ta Moan Thom, another of these temples, 'and are considering whether to permanently close it or close it only for certain periods.' He also made the unverified claim that Cambodia had suffered 3,000 casualties in the recent border clashes. Cambodian Defense Ministry spokesperson Maly Socheata wasted no time in denouncing the Thai declaration as 'irrefutable evidence of provocation and a deliberate and premeditated attempt to invade Cambodian territory.' She said that Boonsin's comments violated the July 28 ceasefire and 'undermined the spirit of the Cambodia–Thailand General Border Committee's extraordinary meeting in Malaysia on August 7.' Exactly which side is most responsible for the continued tensions is hard to determine. Nonetheless, it is clear that political dynamics on both sides of the border continue to militate against a peaceful solution, and that the nationalist passions stoked by the recent conflict make it hard for either nation to be perceived as 'giving in' to the other, or allowing a perceived slight to go unanswered. On the Thai side, tensions persist between the weak Pheu Thai-led government, which signed the ceasefire agreements on July 28 and August 7, and the Thai military, which has long viewed itself as the ultimate guardian of Thai sovereignty. As Paul Chambers noted in a recent article for Fulcrum, the lead-up to last month's conflict saw the military repeatedly undermine the authority of the Pheu Thai government, which the army and the conservative Thai political establishment, more generally, have long mistrusted. The resulting disjuncture has introduced an unpredictability and volatility into Thai decision-making on the border dispute that has increased the chances of a fresh outbreak of fighting. Unlike its counterpart in Bangkok, Prime Minister Hun Manet's government continues to benefit politically from the border conflict, which has unified the nation around his leadership. Given its control of the military and the press, it has also been able to establish more messaging discipline than the Thai side. This suggests that the government's acrimonious claims about Thai behavior, which have included a number of outlandish false claims, are a conscious strategy to play on Thai internal divisions. Whether or not the Cambodian government actively wishes to stoke the conflict, the sense of le patrie en danger clearly comes with ancillary benefits, creating a distraction from more pressing social and economic challenges. As with the Thai side, it currently has more to gain from confrontation than from a lasting peace.
Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
North Korea Starts Dismantling Some Border Loudspeakers, South Korea Says
SEOUL, Aug 9 (Reuters) – South Korea's military said on Saturday it had detected North Korean military dismantling some propaganda loudspeakers aimed at the South in parts of the border area, following similar moves by the South. This is the first time Seoul has made such a statement since President Lee Jae Myung became president two months ago and South Korea began dismantling its own speakers. The military said further confirmation was needed on whether the dismantling was taking place across all areas, adding it would continue monitoring related activities. Seeking to ease tensions with Pyongyang, Lee's liberal government, which replaced a conservative one, switched off propaganda broadcasts criticising the North Korean regime soon after Lee took office. On Monday, South Korean authorities began removing loudspeakers blaring anti-North Korea broadcasts along the country's border, as Lee revives stalled dialogue between the longtime arch-rivals. The countries remain technically at war after the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, and relations have deteriorated in the last few years. Cross-border propaganda broadcasts through loudspeakers have been used by both sides as relations between South and North Korea have ebbed and flowed over the years.
Japan Today
a day ago
- Japan Today
South Korea's military says North Korea is removing speakers from their tense border
A North Korean military guard post, left, and loudspeaker are seen from Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, Saturday, Aug. 9, 2025. (Kim In-chul/Yonhap via AP) By KIM TONG-HYUNG South Korea's military said Saturday it detected North Korea removing some of its loudspeakers from the inter-Korean border, days after the South dismantled its own front-line speakers used for anti-North Korean propaganda broadcasts, in a bid to ease tensions. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't disclose the sites where the North Koreans were removing speakers and said it wasn't immediately clear whether the North would take all of them down. In recent months, South Korean border residents have complained that North Korean speakers blasted irritating sounds, including howling animals and pounding gongs, in a tit-for-tat response to South Korean propaganda broadcasts. The South Korean military said the North stopped its broadcasts in June after Seoul's new liberal president, Lee Jae Myung, halted the South's broadcasts in his government's first concrete step toward easing tensions between the war-divided rivals. South Korea's military began removing its speakers from border areas on Monday but didn't specify how they would be stored or whether they could be quickly redeployed if tensions flared again. North Korea, which is extremely sensitive to any outside criticism of its authoritarian leadership and its third-generation ruler, Kim Jong Un, didn't immediately confirm it was taking down its speakers. South Korea's previous conservative government resumed daily loudspeaker broadcasts in June last year, following a yearslong pause, in retaliation for North Korea flying trash-laden balloons toward the South. The speakers blasted propaganda messages and K-pop songs, a playlist designed to strike a nerve in Pyongyang, where Kim has been pushing an intense campaign to eliminate the influence of South Korean pop culture and language among the population in a bid to strengthen his family's dynastic rule. The Cold War-style psychological warfare campaigns further heightened tensions already inflamed by North Korea's advancing nuclear program and South Korean efforts to expand joint military exercises with the United States and their trilateral security cooperation with Japan. Lee, who took office in June after winning an early election to replace ousted conservative Yoon Suk Yeol, wants to improve relations with Pyongyang, which reacted furiously to Yoon's hard-line policies and shunned dialogue. But Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of the North Korean leader, rebuffed overtures by Lee's government in late July, saying that Seoul's 'blind trust' in the country's alliance with the United States makes it no different from its conservative predecessor. She later issued a separate statement dismissing the Trump administration's intent to resume diplomacy on North Korea's denuclearization, suggesting that Pyongyang — now focused on expanding ties with Russia over the war in Ukraine — sees little urgency in resuming talks with Seoul or Washington. Tensions between the Koreas can possibly rise again later this month, when South Korea and the United States proceed with their annual large-scale combined military exercises, which begin on Aug. 18. North Korea labels the allies' joint drills as invasion rehearsals and often uses them as a pretext to dial up military demonstrations and weapons tests aimed at advancing its nuclear program. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
