Why Justice Must Be Delivered Through Law, Not Press Conferences.

Terrorism, the State, and the Question of Justification.

Why Justice Must Be Delivered Through Law, Not Press Conferences

In any sovereign state, terrorism is not a matter of debate, interpretation, or political alignment. Anyone who takes up arms against the state, attacks civilians, or facilitates violent insurgency is an enemy of the state and must be dealt with decisively. This is not only the right of the state—it is its duty.

However, the strength of a state is not measured by how loudly it explains itself, but by how firmly it adheres to law, constitutional order, and institutional balance.

Terrorism Requires Elimination, Not Explanation

There should be zero ambiguity on this principle:

• A terrorist must be neutralized.
• A facilitator of terrorism must be prosecuted.
• A person acting against national security under the cover of politics must be exposed and punished.

This process does not require public justification, media trials, or repeated press conferences. Terrorism is not defeated by narratives—it is defeated by action grounded in law.

When a state begins to justify its counter-terror actions to the public, it unintentionally sends a dangerous signal: that its actions may be driven by pressure rather than legality.

The Danger of Blurring Terrorism with Political Dissent

The real challenge emerges when terms like “supporting terrorism” or “anti-state behavior” are used without strict legal definitions and judicial scrutiny.

If such labels are applied:

• without court-admissible evidence,
• without transparent legal process,
• or through public statements rather than indictments,

then the line between terrorism and political disagreement begins to blur.

At that point, terrorism does not end—political space collapses instead.

A strong state is one that can clearly distinguish between armed rebellion and political opposition, even when the opposition is harsh, uncomfortable, or unpopular.

The Proper Forum Is the Courtroom, Not the Camera

If a politician or public figure:

• facilitates terrorism,
• amplifies enemy narratives,
• or causes material harm to the state,

then the correct course is straightforward:

1. Collect evidence
2. Build a legal case
3. Present it before the judiciary
4. Enforce the verdict

This process does not require public justification, televised explanations, or institutional press briefings aimed at winning public opinion.

Justice must be seen in verdicts, not speeches.

Why Public Justification Weakens the State

When state institutions repeatedly address the public to justify their actions, several risks emerge:

• The institution appears defensive, not authoritative
• Legal matters turn into public debates
• The judiciary’s role appears secondary
• Society becomes polarized into “for” and “against” camps

In mature democracies, the state simply states:

“Action has been taken under the law. The courts will decide the rest.”

Silence, in such cases, is not weakness—it is constitutional maturity.

Conclusion: Eliminate Terrorism, Preserve the Constitution

Terrorists must be eliminated.

Facilitators must be punished.

Enemies of the state must face consequences.

But the decision of who qualifies as such must never be made on television.

The ultimate strength of the state lies in this balance:

• Force against terrorism
• Law against accusation
• Courts over crowds
• Justice over justification

When this balance is maintained, the state remains strong, credible, and united. When it is lost, even justified actions begin to appear questionable.

Syed Ali Raza Naqvi Bukhari

Unity of Peace, Economic Reform, and Global Unity

Founder & Chairman of Tehreek Istehkam Pakistan, and the author of “Law of God” and “Social Democratic System.”

Advocate for truth, social justice, and reform in all sectors of society.