In many of my discussions, I often highlight that while laws exist, the real challenge lies in their proper implementation. However, I am now starting a series where the issue is slightly different. In this series, I will discuss laws that are written in such a way that their implementation becomes extremely difficult, if not practically impossible.
One example is the Hudood Ordinance, which was introduced in 1979 in Pakistan. This ordinance prescribes certain punishments under Islamic law for specific crimes. For example, for theft there can be severe punishments, and for the crime of zina (adultery or fornication) the ordinance provides punishments such as flogging or even stoning in extreme cases under strict conditions.
If we look at the provisions related to proving the crime of zina, the requirements become extremely complex. To fully understand this issue, it is also important to refer to Section 203-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which explains aspects of the legal process related to such cases.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a fundamental legal framework that explains how crimes are investigated, how evidence is collected, how trials are conducted, and how courts eventually determine punishment.
Under the legal requirements for proving zina under the Hudood framework, the law historically required four witnesses to prove the crime. Not only that, but these witnesses must be male witnesses. The requirements do not end there. The law further requires that these witnesses must meet the standard of Tazkiyat-ul-Shuhood, meaning they must be individuals of proven moral integrity who have not committed major sins and whose character and honesty are beyond question.
In practical terms, this means that if a woman becomes a victim of such a crime, she would have to produce four morally upright male witnesses who directly observed the act. The law even required that their testimony be based on witnessing the act with complete clarity.
This raises a practical question: in real-life situations, such crimes usually occur in private places where no witnesses are present. Therefore, meeting these strict evidentiary requirements can be extremely difficult.
Because of such complexities, the conviction rate in Pakistan remains very low compared to many other countries. For example, some countries report conviction rates as high as 85% to 99%, while Pakistan’s conviction rate in many criminal matters has historically been reported to be very low, often just a few percent.
There can be many reasons for this:
- Weak investigation procedures
- Lack of proper implementation of laws
- Complex legal requirements for proving certain crimes
Sometimes the law exists, but it is not properly implemented. In other cases, the structure of the law itself makes its implementation extremely difficult.
The purpose of discussing these issues is not to criticize for the sake of criticism, but to encourage awareness and meaningful legal discussion. Laws can always be improved through amendments and reforms when society and lawmakers recognize the need for change.
If you found this discussion helpful, share it so that it can reach more people, including those involved in policymaking and legal reform.