Mixed reaction: Utility of inquiry commissions questioned

Experts stress unless findings are made public, they hardly serve any purpose.

LAHORE:

After weeks of outcry, the government finally gave in to the voice of opposition and the journalist fraternity by setting up two separate judicial commissions to probe the Abbottabad Operation and Saleem Shahzad’s murder.

However, law experts have mixed feelings about the commissions, saying that the findings of these commissions are rarely ever made public. More importantly, recommendations after their completion are never implemented, making them ineffective and a waste of government resources.

Zaman Khan at the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) says that setting up such commissions was better than nothing as they may act as deterrence to similar crimes. However, he felt that secrecy in reports did not make sense, especially when the media played such an integral role in disseminating information. “It is a colonial mind set which exists till date. Civil servants were not answerable to the public but to the Raj. Thus, we see [inquiry] reports remain undisclosed.”   In the past, the Hamoodur Rahman Commission’s findings were actually leaked to the Indian press, after which the Musharraf government declassified it. But action was never taken on the report.

Khan hopes the findings of the investigation into the Kharotabad killings will be made public. The inquiry tribunal is due to submit its report to the Balochistan government.

Justice (retd) Wajeehuddin says that such commissions have given false security to the people in the past and that circumstances seemed to be the same today. “Knowing that there is a lack of transparency, the ruling elite pursues a policy of secrecy. And eventually when the government is forced to make inquiry commissions, they are usually just eyewash for the public,” he added.

A sitting judge who has been involved with many of the recent judicial commissions and has chaired some of them, on the request of anonymity, says that it is beyond his understanding why most reports of such fact-finding commissions are not made public. He stressed that if findings were open to the public, they would benefit civil society. The judge added that most of the commission findings in the past have deserved a public audience, however since none of them are ever made public, the exercise is of no remedial value.

“It is a culture of secrecy in this country that exists from top to bottom. The government feels that it isn’t in its interest to reveal the findings,” said constitutional expert Asad Jamal.

Jamal explained that making a sitting judge a part of such a commission could lead to conflict of interests. For instance, during criminal investigations, prosecutors may find evidence contrary to the commission’s finding which could indirectly dent the credibility of the judge and/or the investigation team.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 28^th, 2011.