Pleading Erasmus’s Latin adage: “Malo nodo, malus quærendus cuneus” (desperate times call for desperate measures), the government is bent upon pushing through the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance (PPO) 2013. The hurriedly drawn up Ordinance, which passed the touchstone of the lower house of parliament since the ruling party enjoys a majority there, is likely to face impediments in the Senate before it becomes law. Changes recommended in the PPO leading to the PPO (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 is an outcome of the ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan in the human rights case number 2338-K of 2013, viz the ‘Mohabbat Shah case’. Terming the disappearance of 35 persons from the internment centre at Malakand as “these apparently Kafkaesque workings of the concerned authorities”, the august SC observed that the principles of customary international law codified in the UN General Assembly Declaration on Enforced Disappearances 1992 and the Convention against Enforced Disappearances 2006, even though not ratified by Pakistan, would be applicable to Pakistan as enforced disappearances are a crime against humanity and violate Articles 9 and 10 of Pakistan’s constitution. The SC opined that it would have been wiser to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 [as amended vide ATA (Second Amendment) 2013 (Act XX of 2013)], if required, or preferably to strengthen the agencies charged with prosecution of those accused of the scheduled offences rather than creating a new controversial law, which attempts to remedy the failure(s) of the prosecuting and policing agencies by granting the same unfettered discretionary powers in terms of arresting and searching suspects without warrants, conducting trials in secret and meting out harsher punishments. The preamble to the PPO rationalises that, under the new law, it would be expedient to provide for protection against ‘waging of war’, threats to the security of Pakistan and to provide for the speedy trial of offences falling within the schedule to the PPO. Their argument is that the miscreants, who are supposed to be brought under the ambit of the PPO, are ruthless killers, totally oblivious to human rights, and thus they deserve no compassion. Let us examine some of the apparently harsh clauses. Section 9 A (2014 A) authorises the exclusion of the public from special courts for prosecution. All over the world, the burden of proof rests with the prosecutors but a citizen arrested under the PPO will be considered guilty unless he proves himself innocent. Section 17 provides no recourse to the High or Supreme Court. Section 3 (2a) allows the armed forces and civil armed forces to fire upon any person against whom they are authorised to use force. Section 3 (2) (b) authorises officers of the police, armed forces and civil armed forces to arrest without warrant a person who has committed a scheduled offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion or credible information exists of having or being about to commit a scheduled offence. Section 3 (2) (c) allows the members of the armed forces, civil armed forces or police to enter and search, without warrant, any premises to make an arrest or to take possession of any property, etc., used or likely to be used in the commission of scheduled offences. According to section 5 (5) of the PPO, a person whose identity cannot be ascertained shall be considered an “enemy alien” and presumed to be waging war against Pakistan. The persons under enforced detention and disappearance will be legitimised with retrospective effect. It also enables the government in the interests of the security of its personnel to withhold information regarding the location of the detainee or accused. Human rights activists and opposition parties are labelling the PPO and its amendments as draconian. They consider the laws to be too open ended, which in the hands of trigger-happy or vindictive law enforcement agencies are likely to be misused and will give rise to forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. The law does not make provision for mistakes by the law enforcement agencies. It is imperative to revisit the law and bring balance to it. The broad spectrum definition of terrorism should be narrowed. It should not be applicable to the civil armed forces. The powers to arrest and search without warrant should be curbed along with the powers of firing upon suspects on “reasonable apprehension”. Preventive detention should be made subject to review boards as per the provisions of Article 10 of the constitution. Public trials should be allowed while it should be compulsory for the accused to be informed of the charges against them and it should be incumbent upon the authorities to release the information regarding the location of detainees. The burden of proof should be reversed, making it essential for the prosecuting agency to provide proof of guilt. Retrospective effect of the PPO should be removed. These amendments will perhaps make the PPO more palatable and appear less desperate. The writer is a former group captain of PAF, who also served as air and naval attaché at Riyadh. Currently, he is a columnist, analyst and a television show host