Definition of terrorism.

Byline: Reema Omer

EARLIER this week, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a much-anticipated judgement on the 'meaning, scope and import' of the term 'terrorism' under the Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997.

In a welcome move, the court held that terrorism should be narrowly defined to only cover serious crimes 'designed' to create terror.

As the Supreme Court noted, the definition of terrorism in the ATA has been the subject of much debate since the law was first enacted. The judiciary, starting with the Supreme Court in the Mehram Ali case in 1998, has on a number of occasions been asked to determine the ambit of the special law. However, even two decades after the ATA came into force, the scope of the law remained disputed, even in judgements of the higher judiciary.

The ambiguity in the text of the ATA and its arbitrary application has allowed the law to be misused against political activists, human rights defenders and individuals exercising their constitutionally protected rights to the freedoms of assembly, expression and association. It has also enabled prosecutors to circumvent the regular criminal courts and clog anti-terrorism courts with ordinary crimes.

International standards clarify that laws related to terrorism must be clearly and precisely formulated.

Against this backdrop, a larger bench of the Supreme Court was constituted to settle the ambit of terrorism under the law.

In its judgement, the Supreme Court gave an overview of the jurisprudence on the definition of terrorism to show two predominant approaches taken by courts in determining the ambit of the law:

One interpretation considered the 'nature' or 'effect' of the act, finding that if the 'nature of the offence was gruesome, shocking and created panic amongst society', the act would be considered terrorism even if the motive was private. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court held that the killing of five people over a property dispute could be considered terrorism as the killings took place in public and were visible to others living in the neighbourhood.

Another interpretation considered the purpose, design or motive behind the act to determine if it constituted terrorism, and found that no matter how 'heinous' or 'gruesome' an offence, it cannot be considered terrorism if the motive behind it is personal vendetta. This approach recognised that the ATA is a 'harsh law' that significantly curtails fair trial rights available to accused...