By: Qamar Bashir

Civilized countries uphold the basic rights of their citizens above all other considerations. The constitutions and laws of these countries ensure that all public services and government institutions operate strictly within legal boundaries, serving the people who are the ultimate paymasters for all state institutions and their functionaries, from the President down to the peon.

Even countries that profess socialism have realized that their source of power lies in their citizens’ ability to generate wealth. This wealth creation is only possible when the entire government machinery is holistically, ideologically, and administratively focused on creating enabling conditions for their people to realize their full potential. By creating wealth and paying taxes, citizens make the government wealthy, which in turn uses this wealth to further empower the people and leverage resources from other countries to fuel their growing and prospering economies.

In contrast, countries like ours often operate oppositely. Government officials, who enjoy powers, perks, and privileges because of the hard-earned wealth of individuals from peons to chief executives of multinational companies, often fail to honor and uphold the dignity, privacy, and private lives of these citizens. Instead, they treat them disrespectfully and violate their basic human rights, guaranteed by the constitution, with total impunity. This disregard for citizens’ rights undermines the fundamental principles of governance and erodes public trust in state institutions.

In civilized countries, the right to privacy and protection from unlawful surveillance is a cornerstone of democratic values and human rights. Governments in these nations are bound by stringent legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms to ensure that any surveillance activities are conducted lawfully, transparently, and with respect for individual freedoms. Judicial oversight, data protection laws, and independent regulatory bodies work in tandem to safeguard citizens’ communication data from unauthorized access and misuse. Upholding these principles is essential for maintaining public trust, protecting civil liberties, and preventing abuse of power, ensuring that citizens can communicate freely without fear of unwarranted intrusion by the state.

However in extreme exigencies the intelligence agencies need surveillance of their own or citizens of the foreign countries, they do so after following stringent legal procedures to obtain permission. In the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA PATRIOT Act require agencies to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) or a federal judge, with oversight from congressional committees and the Department of Justice.

In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Act mandates that surveillance warrants be authorized by a Judicial Commissioner and a Secretary of State, overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO).

European Union member states adhere to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), requiring national court approvals and oversight from bodies like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).

For example, Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) requires G10 Commission approval, and France’s intelligence activities are overseen by the Commission Nationale de Contrôle des Techniques de Renseignement (CNCTR). In contrast, China’s National Intelligence Law and Cybersecurity Law allow the Ministry of State Security (MSS) to conduct surveillance with administrative approval and limited transparency, emphasizing state security. Each approach reflects the country’s balance between security and privacy and the extent of judicial and public oversight to prevent abuse.

In Pakistan, the legal framework governing the surveillance of citizens by intelligence agencies includes several key laws and regulations. Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees the inviolability of the dignity of man and, subject to law, the privacy of home. It provides a constitutional safeguard against unlawful interference in an individual’s private life. Section 54 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 allows interception of communications only if authorized by the federal government for national security or emergency purposes, following prescribed procedures. Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013 requires a warrant issued by a High Court judge, based on reasonable grounds related to terrorism, espionage, or serious crime. It also emphasizes the need for judicial oversight to ensure surveillance activities are lawful and not arbitrary. Section 39 of the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016 permits the retention, acquisition, and disclosure of traffic data by service providers for up to one year under specific conditions read with Section 29 permitting the retention, acquisition, and disclosure of traffic data by service providers for up to one year, subject to production of a warrant issued by the court.

Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence and ensures the right to legal protection against such interference.

But in total disregard to the laws of the country, international law and best practices, the high court declared that the intelligence agencies of the country in collaboration with the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and telecom companies, were reportedly engaged in unauthorized mass surveillance of over 400,000 citizens without proper legal authorization or judicial oversight.

The most serious aspect of the judgment is the word “mass surveillance” which is a far more serious crime than individual surveillance if done without following a lawful procedure.It involves monitoring large segments of society indiscriminately, infringing on the privacy rights of many innocent individuals and creating a pervasive sense of being constantly watched. This can lead to self-censorship, stifling free expression and personal freedoms. Additionally, mass surveillance provides extensive data that can be misused for political, social, or economic control, increasing the risk of data breaches and unauthorized use of personal information. It undermines democratic value, violates constitutional and human rights on a large scale, posing significant ethical dilemmas by treating all citizens as potential suspects without due cause.

The impugned judgment has significant implications for upholding the privacy rights of citizens and the democratic and constitutional process in Pakistan. It mandates enhanced accountability and transparency by requiring the federal government, specifically Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and cabinet members, to report on the legal framework and implementation of the surveillance system, ensuring compliance with legal boundaries and constitutional provisions.

By demanding detailed reports from the PTA and telecom companies, the judgment emphasizes judicial oversight to prevent unauthorized surveillance and protect citizens’ privacy under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Holding top officials responsible for mass surveillance promotes accountability, strengthens the rule of law, and prevents abuse of power, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process.

This proactive judicial stance enhances public confidence in the judiciary and may prompt legislative and policy reforms to create clearer, more robust laws balancing national security needs with individual privacy rights, reinforcing the democratic fabric of the country.

By: Qamar Bashir

Former Press Secretary to the President

Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

By: Qamar Bashir

At this critical juncture, the entire PTI leadership must unite and focus their undivided attention and collective energies of politicians, lawyers, and technocrats to navigate the party out of its current challenges. The visible discord among party leaders stands as perhaps the greatest threat, capable of causing irreparable harm.

If the current leadership fails to acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the party’s current composition, strategy, and plans—marked by a narrow representation largely dominated by lawyers, technocrats, and KP-based political activists—lack of plan to secure the release of their leaders, and neglects to open the party’s doors for broader and more diverse representation, they would undermine the party’s integrity.

Such actions would not only betray the PTI’s founding principles and the national cause it champions but also disregard the enduring hardships and sacrifices, including imprisonment, endured by its leader Imran Khan over nearly a year.

This internal division came at a crucial time when unity, solidarity, and comradeship were most dearly needed to address critical and game changing challenges faced by the party. These challenges include the need for an urgent, doable  and well thought out actionable plan to secure the release of Imran Khan and other incarcerated leaders, activists, and workers and reclaim their stolen mandate.

Additionally, PTI needs a coherent and highly effective strategy to defend numerous legal cases across various courts, including the Supreme Court. They must realize that the fate of the party hangs in the balance with the pending verdicts of the Supreme Court on several critical cases that hold existential value for both the party and its leadership.

The party needs to understand that the Supreme Court’s decisions in sensitive cases concerning electoral irregularities, PTI’s political status, the return of election symbols, and the restoration of special seats for women and minorities will shape PTI’s future trajectory. Ironically, in the sub-judice case of allocation of special seats for women and minorities to SIC, PTI reason best known to it, neglected to participate, a flaw that Supreme Court judges themselves lamented with concern.

PTI must realize that these cases demand the undivided attention of the party and require their collective ability to mobilize the public on a large scale in support of their demands. This is crucial to demonstrate PTI’s resilience and capability to achieve its goals even in challenging circumstances.

In this background, PTI urgently needs a well-thought-out and fully articulated political and  legal vision, strategy, and action plan to present a robust defense that convinces the full bench of the Supreme Court and aids the supreme court in reaching decisions aligned precisely with the constitution and the greater good of the people and the country.

It is also crucial for the party to promptly determine whether the party’s cause or positions in government, party, or parliament hold greater importance. Equally critical is resolving whether political sacrifices rendered by the political leadership, lawyers or technocrates should be the sole criterion for their elevation to positions of power, or if competency and suitability for the role should be paramount considerations. They must also decide whether to air their internal disagreements in public, or resolve their egotistical, self-aggrandizing differences in private or on the party platform.

Indeed, the lawyers who stood by Imran Khan through thick and thin, keeping the party afloat while political leaders were incarcerated, in hiding, or abroad, or deserted the party, deserve commendation for their remarkable job.

However, they should also recognize that their talents lie in law rather than politics. They should focus on research, seek guidance from political leadership, and develop a strong, lawful defense for cases across various judicial levels from civil court to the Supreme Court. They should willingly step aside to allow political leaders to lead the party politically and provide them with political insight while crafting defenses.

Similarly, technocrats like Raoof Hassan and Hamid Khan, who may not have public  followings, should continue to offer ideological guidance to the PTI founder and political leaders. They should refrain from meddling in or leading the political and legal decision-making processes where they lack competency or qualifications.

These three distinct departments—legal, ideological and political—working in harmony within their respective domains will significantly enhance the quality of the party and its decision-making processes. However, if individuals continue to dominate departments where they lack qualifications or competency, they would do a disservice to the party leader and the party itself.

At this critical juncture, with their leader facing immense hardship and nearing a year in prison for the greater cause of creating an egalitarian society and upholding the rule of law equally for all, every institution adhering to the constitution, and unlocking Pakistan’s full potential, it is disheartening that he must also contend with petty and ego-driven disputes among party leaders vying for positions based solely on their endurance of jail terms and hardships, rather than their skills, education, or public service record.

The party requires political leadership deeply rooted in the public, capable of mobilizing people to exercise their democratic and constitutional rights to protest to exert pressure on the government to meet their legitimate and legal demands, including the release of Imran Khan, his wife, and other political leaders, a re-evaluation of election results based upon form 45, the return of their allegedly stolen mandate, and the restoration of PTI as a recognized party with its election symbol.

This monumental task demands peace, unity, and consensus within the party at all levels, with responsibilities assigned based on suitability, capacity and ability. The political wing could be led by former President Mr. Arif Alvi, Omer Ayub, Fawad Chaudhary, Shibli Faraz, Asad Qaiser, Mohammad Ali Khan, and Shehryar Afridi and others who have sizable and organic public followings.

The legal wing should be headed by Sardar Latif Khosa, Salman Akram Raja, Gohar Ayub Khan, Sher Afzal Marwat, and others who have proven legal qualifications, expertise, experience and ability to navigate complex, intricate and sensitive legal complexities and present a credible and strong defense in favor of their plea.

The ideological wing may be led by Hamid Khan and Raoof Hassan and such other highly competent, articulate and committed intellectuals.

All wings must work in harmony, enjoying equal status, importance, and value,  equal excess to Imran Khan and should unanimously and collectively focus on achieving overarching objectives rather than getting bogged down in trivial issues that could distract the party from its goals.

By: Qamar Bashir

Former Press Secretary to the President

Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC