Police reforms: reinventing the wheel

On January 14 this year, the Chief Justice of Pakistan made public the recommendations of a special committee headed by CJP and comprising two judges of the Supreme Court and a few retired and serving inspectors general of police for reforming the police force. Everyone was keenly awaiting the outcome of the deliberations of the high-powered committee as without an enabling and peaceful environment, enjoyment of fundamental rights is not possible without public order in any country.

The honourable chief justice rightly remarked that a fully independent police was a prerequisite for a transparent and efficient justice system in any country. The report provided a road map to overhaul the police department, keeping in view the modern challenges. The prime minister of Pakistan and his team also joined the chorus for reforms after sharp public condemnation of brutal killings in Sahiwal. The government has also proposed a committee for reforming the police in accordance with the democratic aspirations of the people. It is, therefore, important to critically examine the discourse of reforms as before embarking upon any reform agenda, it is imperative to ascertain where we stand, why we are here and where do we want to go. We have to determine whether there was really something wrong with the existing law or whether the fault lies at the implementation level.

The preamble of the Police Order 2002 claims to remodel the police in accordance with democratic aspirations of the people. The Order prescribed basic structural changes, however, most of the provisions of the Order were never adhered to, particularly in matters of postings and transfers and functional specialisation as the resources needed for such specialisation were never provided. While the Police Order 2002 had still been experimented the Government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa put an end to the federal charter of policing by enacting the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act 2017 (KPPA 2017). Although it enhanced the powers of the IGP in matters of posting and transfer of officers up to the rank of Additional Inspector General, it falls short in many important areas when compared with the Police Order 2002. While the Police Order 2002 focused on the devolution of authority at all levels, the present KPPA 2017 centralised all authority to the person of IGP. The old Order had conferred wide administrative, financial and operational powers on the Capital Police Officer, City Police Officer and District Police Officer. Capital City was declared a separate General Area under the Police Order 2002 and the Capital Police Officer enjoyed the authority of the head of attached department. This has been done away with under the new Act thus adversely affecting the efficiency of the Capital City Police Officer.

The much-trumpeted concept of separation of investigation from watch and ward in Police Order 2002 has also been shelved. Additional IG Investigation is no longer the head of Investigation as the SP Investigation in districts will now report to the District Police Officer (DPO). The DPO will now evaluate his annual performance with Deputy Inspector General as the countersigning officer and Inspector General as the second countersigning officer. With this departure from the core principle of the concept of functional specialisation, modern policing got sacrificed amid lofty claims of structural changes. Diverting funds from important heads such as Special and Petty Repairs and Reward Money and spending money on fancy projects at the cost of general welfare of the force may only qualify as an image-building exercise but certainly cannot be a serious reform initiative. The reality is that not only police constables live in Police Lines, police stations and police posts, citizens also interact with the police at these places. Most of these buildings are shabby and overcrowded and living barracks of the police force leak in rainy seasons.

The citizens want prevention and detection of crime as well as public order. They complain that cases are not registered and the quality of investigation is often very poor. The institution of police got seriously exposed in controlling urban riots in Karachi, agitation in Model Town, and sit-ins (dharnas) in Islamabad. Mere enactments of laws are not the be-all and end-all of laws. Statutes provide a skeleton while detailed rules, conventions, policies and finances provide the flesh to any intended change. There is a wide gulf between practice and spirit of legislation. For instance, the Civil Servants Act and Police Order 2002 provide the tenure of office for the IGP. This has further been augmented in Anita Turab’s case by the Supreme Court and AD Khwaja’s case. However, the tragedy is that while there is one rule for Sindh as in the matter of AD Khwaja, there is another treatment for Punjab, Islamabad and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. IGPs in those provinces have been changed with quick succession without assigning sound reasons. This exposes the lip service provided by the government to the principle of security of tenure and independence of the institution. Reforms can only be meaningful if the government respects the principles of the tenure of office, consistency of practice, coherence of polices and provision of adequate resources. This incoherence has also marginalised the effect of administrative integration of policing with the merged tribal areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. What is needed is to refrain from cosmetic changes that are aimed at playing to the gallery and instead make investments for capacity building of the police in the core areas of prevention and detection of crime. 

Published in The Express Tribune, February 20^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.