Daily Times

An eerily timed pair of audio leaks overtook Pakistani social media back in August. A man, later identified as Shaukat Tarin, was allegedly heard advising the PTI finance ministers in KPK and Punjab to veto the transfer of surplus funds to the coalition government in an attempt to sabotage talks with the International Monetary Fund.

Shortly after, the Federal Investigation Agency’s cybercrime wing initiated an inquiry to investigate his involvement in the matter. Mr Tarin has ardently denied complicity and instead claims that the clips were tampered with. However, it seems that Tarin’s defence has not had any success with the FIA which recently charged him with sedition for “derailing” a deal with the IMF. If these accusations are true, then Tarin deserves what’s coming for him. But Pakistan has a history of using the law arbitrarily to eliminate political opposition.

The sedition law finds its origins in the British colonial system, designed to override standard legal procedures in special situations where the accused was believed to threaten the British political order. The law continues to be used widely both by Pakistan and India, its heirs, to censor free speech and squash criticism against the rising authoritarian tendencies of both governments.

Deliberately vague and broadly worded, the sedition law has been weaponised many times to victimise political opponents or those who defy the state’s dominant narrative. Let’s not forget that this is the same law that sent Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Habib Jalib to prison. It is also the same law that was notoriously invoked to imprison three former prime ministers and a president. Never in the history of the law’s application has it been necessary to present concrete evidence or prove a conspiracy against the state-its invocation appears to be proof enough for those who continue to leverage it against political dissidents.

South Waziristan MNA Ali Wazir, a vehement critic of the establishment, was recently released after two full years in jail after being charged with sedition. Does his release mark a hopeful beginning for those lobbying for greater freedom of speech or has the establishment simply moved on to someone else? *