PTI chief’s controversial statement does not fall within the mischief of terrorism. An SC judgement, and UN, US and FBI definitions are in favour of Khan. The popularity of PTI chief Imran Khan has skyrocketed whilst political tensions have escalated in the country after the police filed terrorism charges against the former Prime Minister of Pakistan in connection with PTI’s rally held in Islamabad on August 20, 2022. On August 21, 2022, a first information report (FIR) was registered against the cricketer-turned-politician under the Anti-Terrorism Act for threatening an additional sessions judge and senior police officers at the political power show. At the massive gathering, Imran had said the Islamabad Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police would not be spared. He had further warned Zeba Chaudhry, the additional district and sessions judge, of taking action against her.
But mere statements saying “have some shame” cannot be presumed as a terror threat. For the term “terrorism”, international law provides no clear definition. It has various political and ideological connotations. However, all the definitions of terrorism so far made across the world are unanimous that criminal acts or acts of violence, not mere statements, fall within the ambit of terrorism. In the US, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38, of the US Code as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. But no premeditated violence has been reported at the PTI rally in Islamabad.
Likewise, the United Nations Security Council, in its Resolution 1566 of October 2004, elaborates this definition. It says that terrorist acts are “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
Reaffirming this definition in January 2006, the UN General Assembly defines terrorist acts as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes.” Thus, terrorism charges filed against Imran are frivolous and baseless as no “criminal acts” were committed at the rally; his statement caused no death or serious injury to any person nor did he provoke a state of terror.
Moreover, the FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property…” Britannica defines terrorism as the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.” These definitions make clear that “terrorist acts”, not mere statements, fall within the mischief of terrorism.
Most importantly, not to speak of a mere statement, even the “most violent act” cannot always be brought to fall within the mischief of “terrorism”.
A Supreme Court judgement (2019 SCMR 1362) very appropriately clarifies the situation stating that “Every act of violence triggered fear and panic with collateral impact on the surroundings; but this by itself would not bring even the most violent act to fall within the mischief of “terrorism “ as contemplated by the anti-terrorism Act, 1997”. Therefore, the popularity graph of the former prime minister has increased not only at the national but also at the international level.
The definitions of terrorism and laws discussed above clarify that the controversial statements made by Imran Khan during the PTI rally in Islamabad are not criminal acts or acts of violence and do not fall within the mischief of terrorism. Therefore, the police complaint against the PTI chief “has no merit” and requires it to be quashed.
Muhammad Azhar Siddique
The writer is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel
