Hassan Ahmad
The rhetoric surrounding missing persons is often used by domestic and foreign adversaries to damage Pakistan’s international reputation through unverified claims. However, data and state-led legal reforms tell a different story, as the government actively collaborates with global rights organisations to address the issue. Enforced disappearances are a documented global phenomenon affecting over 115 nations, including major powers like the US, UK, and India, where annual statistics significantly dwarf Pakistan’s figures. When viewed against this international backdrop, Pakistan’s numbers remain comparatively modest, with the vast majority of reported cases being systematically investigated and resolved. Pakistan’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances has resolved 86.95% of its 11,035 registered cases, leaving only 1,439 under investigation. Crucially, Balochistan refutes external propaganda with a 94.17% resolution rate. This efficiency highlights state recovery efforts during counter-terrorism operations, contrasting sharply with higher unresolved caseloads in neighbouring India.
Pakistan’s terrorism prosecution rate of 8.7% over two decades, compared to 88% in the UK, 99% in China and 99.9% in Japan, highlights the challenge.
The most common fallacy, created through international pressure, is that every person on a missing list has been picked up by LEAs and intelligence agencies. Baloch activists, PTM and certain anti-state elements based abroad have coined and popularised ‘missing persons’ terminology as a means of framing the issue against Pakistan. Those residing in Europe, including individuals who obtained asylum, exploit host countries’ freedoms of expression and asylum protections to promote these narratives through digital platforms, seeking to discredit state institutions. The portrayal of missing persons as a systematic state policy is driven by a nexus between anti-state elements within Pakistan, dubious Western lobbyists and political fronts for terrorist organisations operating in Europe. Through coordinated advocacy and media engagement, these networks project unverified allegations as established facts. There is no denying that missing persons cases exist, but not all are enforced disappearances. 70-80% of cases can be termed as personal or vested interest type. Individuals being projected as missing include terrorists who joined proscribed organisations, illegal immigrants to Europe via Afghanistan/Iran, individuals killed abroad in terrorist acts, absconders involved in criminal activities, proclaimed offenders reported as missing by families to avoid arrest, individuals who left homes voluntarily and those abducted due to personal enmities. The state has built an institutional mechanism. Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances (COIED), a federal body established by the Government of Pakistan in March 2011 to trace missing persons and investigate cases of enforced disappearances. The COIED follows a four-stage methodology, which includes reference to the Home Department and Police, where JITs meet fortnightly and must conclude within 45 days; Provincial Task Forces/Islamabad Task Force review within 15 days; Commission proceedings with Police, LEAs, intelligence agencies and the Home Department; and finally disposal with Production Orders or direction for criminal case registration if untraced. Over 80% of the remaining 1,439 active cases belong to far-flung areas where complainants do not appear regularly, delaying finalisation. In August 2024, the Federal Cabinet approved a Rs 5 million support package for each deserving family, with Rs 5 billion allocated for 1,000 families. Terrorism cases in Pakistan often fail to reach a conclusion due to threats to judges, prosecutors and witnesses. Pakistan’s terrorism prosecution rate of 8.7% over two decades, compared to 88% in the UK, 99% in China and 99.9% in Japan, highlights the challenge. The Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was amended with Section 11-EEEE providing preventive detention for inquiry up to 90 days, creating a traceable legal mechanism. The Anti-Terrorism (Balochistan Amendment) Act 2025 and Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act 2026 incorporate this, with the latter also inserting Section 21-AAA enabling Faceless Courts. This framework ensures terrorism-related apprehensions are traceable and under legal safeguards. Faceless Courts, providing identity protection through confidential records, concealed signatures and voice masking, have international precedents ie Colombia’s ‘jueces sin rostro’ in the 1990s, Italy’s Law No. 82 of 1991, UK’s Coroners and Justice Act 2009, France’s Law No. 2016-731, Spain’s Organic Law 19/1994, and Chile’s Law 21.577 of 2023. The facts are clear: Pakistan is not hiding a crisis; it is systematically resolving one that has been deliberately inflated.
The writer is a student.