Mission impossible: Top secret operations on a shoe-string budget

The fund allocated to ICT police for running ‘off-the-book’ operations is ‘grossly inadequate’.


Umer Nangiana January 16, 2011

ISLAMABAD: A ‘secret fund’ to the tune of over one hundred thousand rupees was released for Islamabad Capital Territory police to use over the next six months.

Of the total Rs130,000, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations) gets Rs20,000 while the Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) receives Rs30,000, with eight Superintendents of Polices splitting the rest at Rs10,000 each.

The secret fund is allocated by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) from the available annual police budget, sources said.

Senior police officers complained that the amount given to them was too meagre to conduct secret operations necessary for effective policing.

“Running a secret operation with just Rs10,000 is impossible these days,” said a police officer. The operations included surveillance of criminals and proclaimed offenders, paying police informants, sending police teams outside Islamabad to capture wanted criminals and all other operations that do not fall under standard accountable heads, sources said.

“If you compare our secret funds with those of the armed forces, theirs might be higher than their actual budget,” said a police officer.

“Police need the same attention from the government if policing is to be made better and more effective,” he added.

An informer is an integral part of any police investigation and is usually paid for his services. They are recruited by almost all police stations.

“If a police officer needs the services of an informer he has to pay from his own pocket to meet the requirements,” said a police official.

IGP Kaleem Imam was not available for a comment because he was “busy in meetings”, according to his personal secretary.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 16th, 2011.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ