ISLAMABAD: Days after its adoption by the National Assembly, the controversial Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill providing for detention of up to six months for those suspected to be a `threat for security` for Pakistan and sovereignty of the state was bulldozed in the Senate on Tuesday.

The protesting opposition rejected it as a move to curtail fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.

The bill was not referred to the standing committee concerned and was taken up for immediate consideration after the House carried a motion to this effect.

Some amendments on the bill moved by JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza were rejected by the Housedominated by ruling alliance by a majority vote.

Senators from PTI and JUI-F staged a walkout from the House after voting against the bill as a mark of protest against it.

Senators Dilawar Khan and Ahmad Khan Khilji of JUI-F chose not to join the walkout.

As Minister of State for Interior Tallal Chaudhry sought to move the bill in the House, parliamentary leader of PTI in the Senate Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said the amendment would empower the armed and civil armed forces to detain anybody for three months, extendable to another three months without any cogent reasons, without affording him an opportunity to seek a legal remedy.

Mr Zafar asked if the amendment would strengthen Pakistan or weaken the constitutional rights, which the lawmakers had sworn oathto protect. Terming the AntiTerrorism Act (ATA) as one of the most powerful and most controversial laws in the statute book, he said it had been enacted under extraordinary circumstances to protect Pakistan from extraordinary threats.

`But as lawmakers, we must always remember: every extraordinary power given to the state can both be used and misused,` he stressed.

He said there was no doubt that terrorism must be eradicated from the country and terrorists must be punished, but he warned that urgency must not eclipse wisdom.

The PTI leader said the Supreme Court had examined the provisions of the existing anti-terrorism act and declared many of its provisions to be against the Constitution. `It was only after that that the present law was passed and hence there is no room for any changes to make the lawmore draconian,` he remarked.

The amendment proposes that even an SHO can arrest and put anybody in prison for a period of three months and that person would have no recourse to the courts.

`The government can call anyone a terrorist on the ground of public order and imprison them,` he said.

`Our duty is twofold: on the one hand, we must protect the lives of our citizens from the scourge of terrorism; and on the other, we must defend constitutional freedoms.

He noted that the concept of democracy would be meaningless in the absence of a balancing act.

`Security will have to be balanced against liberty and power against accountability,` he exhorted.

Barrister Ali Zafar regretted that over the years, the ATA had been stretched far beyond its original purpose. `Provisions meant for danger-ous terrorists have been applied to political workers, journalists and even peaceful demonstrators.

`After this amendment, ATA will not only become a violation of fundamental constitutional rights Articles 9, 10A, 15 and 19 but also undermine the credibility of our counterterrorism framework,` he observed. He stressed that counterterrorism cannot mean counterdemocracy. The law must be targeted, comprehensive and just, he stressed.

He recommended the bill be referred to the standing committee concerned. He said the amendment must be such that it only covers dangerous, not ordinary, citizens.

He also called for ensuring that the definition of `terrorism` was narrow so that no citizen is branded a terrorist merely for exercising the legal right to dissent. `At the same time, judicial oversight must be strengthened. No arrest under this law should occur without immediate review by an independent court,` he said.

He said the provision of arbitrary arrest without recourse to court was contrary to the injunctions of Islam.

`We are certainly emotional about ensuring the eradication of terrorism, but we cannot ignore the rule of law,` he said.

Barrister Ali Zafar stressed that terrorism flourishes in the absence of justice. `If our laws are seen as instruments of repression, they will breed hatred rather than peace. But if they are rooted in justice, transparency and respect for rights, they will command the full moral support of the people,` he said.

Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar defended the amendments, emphasising that the country was facingsevere terrorism threats and the proposed amendments were necessary to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

He added that the bill had already passed judicialscrutinyandincluded a three-year sunset clause, besides many safeguards.

He said the armed forces would have the power to place somebody under preventive detention only in the areas where they have been called in aid of civil power under Article 245 of the Constitution, with the consent of the federal or provincial government concerned, as the case may be. According to Clause 2 of the amendment, detainees will have to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, he said.

He said only those who pose a threat to security of Pakistan and sovereignty of the state and could possibly be used by inimical forces against Pakistan will be detained under the law for an inquiry. He claimed that the law was not repugnant to the Constitution.PPP parliamentary leader in Senate Sherry Rehman said the PPP added many safeguards to the law to make it more effective.

`Our legislative committee noted that it is the same bill all parties passed via an APC (all-party conference) after the Army Public School attack. It was in force for two years.

This time round, the PPP put in another sunset clause, an explanation for cause for detention, a right of appeal and review and a definition of who is a terrorist. The Constitution has provided for it in Article 10. It should also ensure that no one is a missing person. The administration will have to be told who has been detained and why,` she said.

Pointing out that former prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated as a result of terrorism, she said, `We don`t take terrorism lightly. Many countries have worse laws dealing with terrorism but we should be careful this one is not misused.