The government introduced its second presidential ordinance to tackle the problem of militancy in just two weeks in the

form of the Pakistan Protection Ordinance, but the jury is still out on whether this flurry of activity will lead to concrete results. This latest ordinance has increased the minimum punishment for various crimes associated with terrorism to 10 years, where previously some of these crimes would result only in a fine or short imprisonment. The main problem, though, is not so much the period of incarceration as the fact that many suspected militants cannot be convicted in the first place since evidence-collecting is often faulty and witnesses and prosecutors are too fearful of their lives to take on the militants in court. The earlier ordinance had finally introduced measures to provide them with protection but until they feel secure there is unlikely to be any improvement in the conviction rate. Some clauses in the new ordinance are also ripe for abuse, especially the one granting law-enforcement agencies the power to search any premises without a warrant when investigating cases of terrorism. It is a sad truth that handing such power to the authorities always leads to abuse and there doesnt seem to be any mechanism to prevent the misuse of warrantless searches. As much as we want to give law-enforcement agencies the power to deal with terrorism, it is also important to protect our right to be spared unreasonable searches. Officials are now explaining that the main target of the ordinance are enemy aliens, whatever that term means, but commonly understood as Afghans, Chechens, Uzbeks and other foreign terrorists. The ordinance will also set up special federal courts to allow justice to be delivered speedily, although this is a promise we were given before when the Anti-Terrorism Courts were set up and yet the justice system is as clogged as ever. The backlog of unheard cases increases every year and since the regular courts will still hold the right to hear appeals on verdicts passed by these new courts there is no reason to believe that they will improve the speed with which sentences are handed down. The other measure to try and improve the efficiency of the justice system is the setting up of separate police stations to quickly investigate certain crimes. The aim here may not be to just speed up the process but also ensure that these police stations remain free of political influence a problem that is particularly rampant in Karachi. A simple law, though, will not be enough to prevent the politicisation of the police and will require the political parties to step aside. That, in a nutshell, is the difficulty in judging any new laws. Until we know if the government has the will to implement them they will remain mere words that carry little force.