By Muhammad Zeb, Peshawar
The alleged sexual assault and killing of a nine-year-old girl in Madian should force Pakistan to confront the gaps in its child-protection system
A nine-year-old girl should be thinking about school, friends, books and the ordinary dreams of childhood. She should be growing up under the protection of her family, her community and the state.
Instead, a little girl in Madian allegedly became the victim of sexual violence and murder.
Her death is a devastating loss for her family. But it is also a test of Pakistan’s commitment to protecting children, enforcing the rule of law and ensuring that vulnerable citizens are not left without protection.
The first question is painfully simple: How did a child so young become exposed to such violence?
The second is more difficult: What will the state do now?
According to reports, police have arrested an alleged suspect in connection with the case. That is an important step, but an arrest is not the same as justice. Justice requires a credible investigation, preservation of evidence, effective prosecution and a fair judicial process capable of establishing the truth.
The investigation must therefore be transparent, impartial and evidence-based. Forensic evidence should be properly collected and preserved. Every relevant lead should be examined. Witnesses and the affected family should receive appropriate protection, and no individual should be permitted to influence the investigation because of political connections, social standing or personal influence.
At the same time, the presumption of innocence must remain fundamental. Allegations must be investigated rigorously, but guilt must ultimately be determined by a competent court. If the accused is convicted, the punishment should be imposed strictly in accordance with the law.
This balance is not a technicality. It is the foundation of the rule of law.
But the Madian case should not end with the arrest of one suspect or the conclusion of one trial.
It should compel a broader examination of how children are protected before violence occurs.
Pakistan has laws and institutions intended to protect children. The challenge is ensuring that protection exists not only on paper but in the daily lives of children, particularly those who are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves.
A functioning child-protection system requires more than legislation. It requires trained police officers, accessible reporting mechanisms, effective forensic services, competent prosecutors, responsive social services and courts capable of dealing with cases involving children without unnecessary delay.
It also requires prevention.
Children need age-appropriate awareness about personal boundaries, unsafe situations and how to seek help. Parents and teachers need the knowledge and confidence to recognize warning signs. Most importantly, children must know that when they speak about abuse or danger, adults will listen to them rather than silence or blame them.
This is where society also has a responsibility.
Too often, public attention intensifies after a child has been killed or seriously harmed. There is anger, condemnation and a demand for punishment. But public outrage cannot become the only mechanism through which the protection of children receives attention.
A society should not wait for another tragedy before asking whether its protective institutions are working.
The question is particularly important because the consequences of institutional failure are irreversible. A delayed investigation can be corrected. A weak administrative system can be reformed. A deficient policy can be changed.
A child’s life cannot be restored.
For the family of the Madian girl, no official statement or expression of sympathy can undo what has happened. Their loss will remain long after the headlines disappear.
That is why the state owes them more than condolences.
It owes them a serious investigation, due process, legal assistance, protection from intimidation and a justice process that reaches a lawful conclusion.
But it also owes something to every other child.
The government should use this case as an opportunity to examine the weaknesses of existing child-protection mechanisms. Where reporting systems fail, they must be strengthened. Where investigations lack expertise, investigators must be trained. Where forensic capacity is insufficient, it must be improved. Where cases are delayed, the reasons for those delays must be addressed.
Child protection should not depend on whether a particular case attracts public attention.
Every child has the right to life, dignity, security and protection from violence.
Those rights do not begin after a crime occurs. They begin before it.
The death of a nine-year-old girl cannot be reversed. But the response to her death can determine whether her case becomes another forgotten file or a catalyst for meaningful institutional reform.
The question before the authorities is therefore not simply whether an accused person will be prosecuted.
It is whether the state can demonstrate that the protection of children is a responsibility it takes seriously.
Children do not need pity. They need protection.
Families do not need promises. They need justice.
And the state must provide more than assurances. It must provide accountability.
