Senate chairman drops violent extremism bill after fierce opposition

A bill to stop violent extremism was “dropped” by Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani on Sunday after significant resistance from MPs, including some from the ruling coalition.

Senate chairman drops violent extremism bill: Rana Sanaullah, the interior minister, was scheduled to introduce the “Prevention of Violent Extremism Bill 2023,” which was on the agenda for today’s session. Many lawmakers, including members in the ruling coalition, disagreed with the proposal, though.

The bill, a copy of which is available at Dawn.com, stated that those who incite others to use violence, spread and publish extremist content, use all forms of media to radicalise or influence people’s beliefs, or incite sectarian strife are all considered to be practising violent extremism.

According to Mohammad Humayun Mohmand of PTI, he is unsure of the purpose behind the bill’s Sunday introduction. “Is there a need for us to come and do this on Sundays and public holidays in Pakistan?”

He continued by saying that it would only strengthen the legitimacy of the legislation if it were passed in accordance with the correct method. “Haste makes waste,” he observed, “if we act hastily just because the government believes there isn’t much time left.”

Sherry Rehman, the minister of climate change, attempted to explain the scheduling of today’s meeting by noting that sessions had previously been called on Sundays and Saturdays. She also addressed the remarks made by other lawmakers who questioned the decision not to refer the bills on the agenda to the appropriate committees.

Perhaps they are unaware that the National Assembly’s (NA) rules state that bills that originate there become infructuous on the day the assembly’s term expires.

Sherry stated that after the assembly’s tenure ended, the Senate might likewise introduce modifications to laws. Hasty legislation is disliked by everyone, she remarked.

PML-N As a member of the ruling party, Senator Irfan Siddiqui continued, there may be a “compulsion” for them to vote in favour of the laws, and they would do so.

He added that several of the laws up for discussion today were “important” at the same time. He described the prevention of violent extremism bill as covering “vast areas” when speaking of it.

The bill’s 33 articles and 100 subclauses, he noted, applied to everyone—politicians included—as well as the average person.

Siddiqui emphasised that the bill had been sent directly to the Senate and had not originated from the NA. “It is our duty to carefully review it after it comes to us immediately before submitting it to the NA. We support the bill’s goals and objectives, but we are concerned that if it is passed in its current form without first going through a committee, it would be challenging to get out from under its influence in the future.

The measure was then introduced by Minister of State for Law and Justice Shahadat Awan on behalf of the Interior Minister.

Chairman Sanjrani inquired, “Is it opposed?” The senators responded that it was. Then he questioned, “Should I send it to the committee or take it to passage?”

Mohmand of PTI continued by stating that this was a significant bill that will affect people’s life. But as I read the law, it appeared as though Rana Sanaullah [named] it to stop violent extremism but perhaps he wanted to stop PTI from running in the upcoming elections.

Each clause, according to him, “reeked” of targeting the PTI. The senator encouraged the Senate chairman to refer the bill to the appropriate committee since it would have “far-reaching effects” while pointing out that coalition members were also opposed to the measure.

“It is better to impose martial law or a form of partial law if you want to achieve this. Why are we seated in this Parliament, he questioned.

The Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) senator Kamran Murtaza then stated that any such legislation requires holding secret negotiations with allies. “With this law, you are chopping off your own hands. You may not be aware of it, but I, as a coalition senator, voice my objections when fundamental rights are being restricted and legislation is being rushed through during the holidays.

He predicted that the measure will eventually cause issues for everyone. So, he pleaded, “Please don’t pass this kind of legislation that violates the Constitution’s articles.”

Senator Tahir Bizenjo of the National Party lamented that the PPP and the PML-N were only political parties making decisions. He criticised the PML-N, claiming that they had not given anyone their word regarding the legislation passed during their rule.

He added that he was “strongly opposing the bill” and described the present legislation as a “open attack” on democracy. We would launch a symbolic walkout if it is tabled, he said.

Senator Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri of the JUI-F claimed that their coalition allies were unaware of what lay ahead. He also expressed the party’s opposition to the law and questioned the necessity of scheduling a session on a Sunday.

Senator Mushtaq Ahmad of the Jamaat-i-Islami party announced that he had presented his revisions to the legislation, and he thanked the Senate chairman for adding them. He claimed that the 24-page law was hostile to all political parties, not only the PTI.

“This will prove to be the last nail in the coffin of democracy,” he declared. He opposed the bill, stating that “non-elected forces want that democracy is laid to rest through Parliament.”

He also expressed surprise that the government had not discussed the issue in confidence with its allies. You’re [introducing] a law today that targets a party. I reject it because it will create a noose around PDM parties tomorrow.

The bill was subsequently described as a “routine matter” by Senate Chairman Sanjrani, who said that the reason for today’s session was because it was agreed in the business advice that the days needed to be finished and three holidays would not be counted.

Regardless of what the administration does, I drop this bill, he declared.

Later, Sanjrani said that the measure had been “dropped” but will be addressed the next business day. Later, the meeting was adjourned until Wednesday, August 2, at 3 p.m.

‘Frightening bill’

PTI’s Sania Nishtar questioned the consequences of the measure before to the start of the Senate session.

“Large latitude and comprehensive indemnity for the government. No impartiality in the evaluation process. restrictions on personal freedoms. Offences are not subject to bail, are cognizable, and cannot be compounded, she stated.

She questioned, “What are the implications for human rights, the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and chador aur char diwari values?”

The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) government, according to senator Mushtaq Ahmad, is putting out a bill against violent extremism. This bill, he claimed, “will not stop violent extremism; it will actually increase it.”

“The bill’s sections five and six are harsh. This bill seeks to outlaw the PTI, he said. He said that using such tactics to depose a political figurehead or political party was improper.

He argued that instead of treating Parliament like a “rubber stamp,” the government should refer the bill to the committee.

The bill

According to the bill, individuals convicted of engaging in “violent extremism” may be added to the ATA’s Second Schedule. In the case of an organization, it may be added to the ATA’s First Schedule. These additions to the schedules will subject the individuals or organizations to specific measures and scrutiny under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

People and groups engaged in terrorist operations are prohibited under the First and Second Schedules. The First and Second Schedules contain a list of such individuals. These listed individuals must be closely monitored by the authorities.

According to the bill, someone engages in “violent extremism” when they “support, encourage, promote, incite, foment, advocate, justify, engage in, or threaten to engage in the show or use of force or violence or any hostile action, not permitted by law, for resolution of any ideological belief, or any political, sectarian, social, racial, ethnic, or religious issue.”

The bill specifies the actions that could be taken against anyone named in the Second Schedule, such as limiting their “access, appearance, or use of the print, electronic, or mass media, including social media and FM radio stations.”

The document’s further provisions may also prohibit a person’s movement, visit, entry, or transit. These restrictions apply to any public or private place within Pakistan. Additionally, they apply to territories abroad.

The measure further states that the government may “immediately freeze and seize” any assets, properties, and bank accounts in the person’s name or “where he is a shareholder or beneficiary,” as well as check or investigate the person’s or their family members’ assets through a law enforcement agency.

It continues, “The persons listed may be prohibited from voting in any election.”

The bill specifies that when listing organisations, the assets of the entity’s officers and directors would be investigated, and their actions would also be watched. According to the bill, “the passport of the leader, office bearer, member, and employee shall be impounded and no travel document shall be issued to him and he shall not be permitted to travel abroad.” It also states that the same person’s licences to possess weapons will be cancelled.

The measure states that all assets, buildings, and bank accounts registered in name of designated organization must be immediately frozen. It further specifies that this freezing of assets should take place promptly. Following the freezing process, these assets will be subject to confiscation.

According to the measure, no public employee should participate in any activity that supports violent extremism on behalf of themselves, their department, or members of their family. If they do, the measure would further impose penalties on them in addition to departmental actions.

The measure specifies that the police will carry out any inquiries and investigations required by the act. Alternatively, the government may designate “such other body” to perform these tasks.

The bill also specifies how violent extremism will be punished. Violent extremism is punishable by imprisonment of either kind for a time that may not be less than three years but may not be less than ten years, as well as by a fine that may not be less than Rs. 500,000 but may not be more than Rs. 2 million.

According to the law, “Any person who violates any order issued under this act or any other provisions of this act shall, upon conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term not to exceed five years, but not to exceed one year, and with a fine not to exceed Rs. 1 million, but not to exceed Rs. 500,000,”

The measure further states that any group proven to be supporting violent extremism may be fined up to Rs. 5 million, but not less. The bill further states that, “On conviction, such an organisation, shall immediately stand dissolved or wound up, as the case may be,” regardless of any other provisions of currently-applicable laws.