The recent arrest of Professor Usman Qazi on allegations of facilitating terrorism raises an important legal and academic question. Does a person’s professional status as a university teacher grant any immunity from criminal liability under Pakistani law? The straightforward answer is no.
The Constitution of Pakistan enshrines the principle of equality before the law. Article 25 guarantees that all citizens are equal, and the law does not create exceptions on the basis of profession or office. Similarly, in the broader common law tradition, the principle is firmly established that no profession or office provides immunity from criminal liability unless such immunity is expressly granted by statute. The Penal Code contains no provision exempting university professors or academics from its operation.
Precedents exist where even university students, including female students, have been implicated in acts of terrorism.
In this context, Professor Qazi’s arrest must be viewed within the framework of due process. Article 10A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. He is entitled to present his defence, to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and to avail himself of all safeguards available to any accused person. The mere fact of his academic standing does not alter the applicability of these principles.
The controversy, however, has emerged largely on social media. Narratives have been constructed portraying him as an intellectual silenced by state oppression. Yet, in legal analysis, it is necessary to distinguish between such narratives and the state’s formal position. According to official statements, he is alleged to have acted as a handler for the banned BLA’s Majid Brigade, using his academic platform at BUITEMS to radicalise and recruit students. The allegations extend to his alleged involvement in the November 2024 Quetta railway station suicide bombing that killed 32 civilians and 22 security personnel, and preparations for another attack on 14 August 2025.
From a legal standpoint, these allegations fall within the framework of anti-terrorism legislation, particularly the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which criminalises not only acts of terrorism but also abetment, facilitation, and recruitment. If the prosecution substantiates its claims, the law will attach full liability regardless of the accused’s professional background.
There is also an important conceptual point here. Civil society has long demanded that allegations of terrorism be dealt with through the courts rather than through extrajudicial measures. In this instance, the state has acted precisely in that manner, arresting the accused and placing him within the judicial process. To dismiss this process merely on account of his status as an academic undermines the principle of legal equality.
The situation in Balochistan further portrays the seriousness of the matter. Precedents exist where even university students, including female students, have been implicated in acts of terrorism. The fact of academic affiliation has never been recognised as a shield from criminal liability, and rightly so.
The government also points out a crucial point: if the issue is truly one of deprivation, then how is it that Dr. Usman and his wife both hold respectable government positions? What form of deprivation is this? The same question arises in the case of Dr. Mahrang Baloch, who completed her MBBS on a state-funded scholarship, yet continues to raise the banner of marginalisation.
The appropriate legal and academic conclusion is therefore clear. The matter must proceed before the courts, where the prosecution will bear the burden of proof and the accused will enjoy full rights of defence. Public debate is inevitable, but it should not obscure the principle that the law applies equally to all citizens. Academic status, however respected, cannot and should not function as a bar to the enforcement of law.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood.