By: Judge Muhammad Asim Imam
The growing debate over alleged extrajudicial killings in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa raises a fundamental question about the rule of law: Can justice be served by killing a suspect before a court has determined his guilt?. The difficult security environment cannot become a justification for bypassing the legal process. Whether a person is accused of terrorism, murder, robbery or any other serious crime, the determination of guilt belongs to the courts, not to an armed encounter on the street.
The available figures make this debate particularly important. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), its media monitoring recorded 289 suspects killed in 162 police encounters and Counter-Terrorism Department operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during 2025.
However, they also underline why the distinction between a legitimate counterterrorism operation and an unlawful killing must remain clear. A militant killed during an armed operation is not automatically evidence of an extrajudicial execution, just as a police claim of an encounter should not automatically be treated as proof that the use of lethal force was lawful.
The recent incident in Khyber district provides a particularly significant example of why this debate deserves serious attention. In September 2026, two men, Ashfaq Afridi and Hidayat Khan, who had been taken into police custody, were killed in what police initially described as an exchange of fire. Their families and local elders rejected the police account, alleging that the men had been killed while in custody. The incident triggered protests and prompted the provincial government to order a judicial inquiry. Subsequently, police officials approached the victims’ families through a traditional tribal jirga and offered Nanawatai (an apology and request for forgiveness), with compensation agreed upon for the families. This development raises a fundamental question: can an apology, financial compensation and a tribal settlement replace the legal responsibility to investigate an alleged unlawful killing and establish the truth?
This issue is not entirely new to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The province has a history of allegations involving fake police encounters, including cases in which judicial intervention was necessary to establish accountability. In July 2004, five policemen, including a station house officer, were arrested following a Peshawar High Court order in connection with the alleged killing of a ninth-grade student, Kashmir Khan, in a fake encounter. A judicial inquiry had reportedly implicated the police personnel, and the case was registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. This case remains a significant historical reminder that the uniform of a law-enforcement officer does not place anyone above the law. such incidents demonstrate that claims of encounters sometimes require investigation beyond the initial police account. They also show why an independent mechanism for examining deaths during police operations is necessary.
The concern is what happens when an encounter becomes an alternative to investigation, prosecution and trial. Under Pakistan’s constitutional framework, the right to life and liberty is protected by Article 9, while Article 10A guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. These protections do not disappear simply because someone is accused of committing a serious crime. Even a person caught with strong evidence against him must be presented before the law, given an opportunity to defend himself and subjected to punishment only through the prescribed legal process.
The future implications of such practices could be far more damaging than the immediate loss of life. When suspects are killed instead of being arrested and prosecuted, the state loses the opportunity to establish the truth through evidence, identify accomplices, uncover criminal networks and secure convictions. In terrorism and organised crime cases, this can mean losing valuable intelligence about the people financing, facilitating and directing criminal activities. Arrests and proper investigations can potentially lead to the dismantling of entire networks, whereas killing an individual may leave the larger network untouched.
There is also the danger of innocent people becoming victims. An accusation is not proof of guilt, and an initial police assessment is not a judicial verdict. Mistaken identity, personal enmity, fabricated intelligence, pressure to show operational success or an incorrect investigation can all have devastating consequences when lethal force replaces due process. Once an individual is killed, the opportunity to correct an investigative mistake is permanently lost. Families are left without answers, while the possibility of accountability becomes dependent on whether an independent investigation is conducted and whether evidence is preserved.
Another serious consequence is the gradual weakening of public confidence in the police and criminal justice system. In communities already affected by militancy, displacement and insecurity, allegations of unlawful killings can deepen mistrust between citizens and law-enforcement agencies. People may become reluctant to cooperate with investigations, provide information or approach the police when they need protection. This is particularly concerning in districts where effective cooperation between local communities and security institutions is essential to counterterrorism efforts. The state cannot build lasting public security without public confidence.
There is also a danger of creating a culture in which the apparent success of policing is measured by the number of suspects killed rather than the number of cases investigated, prosecuted and successfully concluded. Such a culture can undermine professional policing, discourage investment in forensic capabilities and weaken the incentive to improve investigation standards. It can also create a dangerous precedent for future governments and law-enforcement administrations, if the state can bypass the courts in the case of an unpopular or suspected criminal, what safeguards will protect an ordinary citizen when the accusation is mistaken or politically motivated?
Ultimately, the debate is not about whether criminals deserve punishment. They do, if their guilt is established through law. It is about whether the state itself must obey the law while enforcing it. The Constitution does not provide one standard of justice for ordinary citizens and another for the police or other state institutions.
A police encounter may produce immediate public satisfaction, particularly when the deceased is accused of a serious crime. But public satisfaction is not the same as justice. Every time the legal process is replaced by an unverified claim of an encounter, the damage extends beyond the person who loses his life. It weakens the institutions responsible for delivering justice and creates a precedent that can eventually threaten people who have committed no crime at all.
Islam also places extraordinary emphasis on justice, fairness and the protection of human life. The Holy Quran commands believers in Surah An-Nisa to stand firmly for justice, even when it goes against their own interests or those of their relatives. Similarly, Surah An-Nahl declares that Allah commands justice, excellence and generosity. These Quranic principles establish that justice cannot be selective, emotional or driven by public anger. It must be impartial and grounded in truth.
The real test of a functioning state is not how many suspects it can eliminate, but how effectively it can investigate crimes, convict the guilty, protect the innocent and hold its own officials accountable. Justice without due process may appear quick, but it can leave behind a much deeper crisis of injustice.
The author is a former District and Sessions Judge who has also served as an Advisor to the Federal Ombudsman and Commissioner of the KP RTS Commission, having 40 years of experience.
