Police reforms: a far cry
Amid lofty claims of perception improvement, Police Reforms have remained a buzz phrase among political parties
PHOTO: FILE
Provision of security and protection of life and property are the sublime duties of the state. Durable peace is considered essential for the enjoyment of fundamental rights, rule of law and progress in all walks of life and the police are tasked to protect such notions. In this context a police officer must always be idealised by citizens as a wise and impartial friend who would protect them from injury to their life, property and honour. In order to achieve these ideals, a Superintendent of the police (SP) must know the people of his district and the actions of his/her subordinates. Good policing can be ensured by an SP offering unhindered personal accessibility, active touring of the district, thorough and intelligent supervision of subordinates and a genuine interest in the life of the district and by keeping himself abreast of the facts and difficulties of the work of his/her own subordinates. Unfortunately, the police as an institution have not been able to manage its perception well and are generally perceived as an instrument of suppression ever since the birth of Pakistan.
Amid lofty claims of perception improvement, Police Reforms have remained a buzz phrase among the political parties and other public opinion leaders. The only meaningful change in this regard, however, can be attributed to the initiative of ushering Police Order 2002. The order aimed at introducing structural changes, with a focus on independent police service subject to law, independent prosecution service and functional specialisation. Critics say that though the Order augured well for the officers of the Police Service of Pakistan as it resulted in addition of new posts to the higher hierarchy, it hardly changed the lot of the lower level of the system. Mere proclamation of law is not the be all and end all of reforms as all reforms and concepts when translated into reality have their own financial implications.
The Police Order 2002 also experienced the same fate. Despite being laced with statutory provisions of separation of investigation and functional specialisation, no substantive work had been done within that domain. The system lingered on with old archaic methods with no improvement in training towards functional specialisation in cases of homicide, kidnapping for ransom, hostage crisis, offences under terrorism, money laundering and riot control.
To further problematise the situation, while the Police Order 2002 was still being experimented, the provincial governments of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh put an end to the federal character of policing by enacting new provincial police laws while Islamabad Police operates under the Police Act 1861. From the citizens’ perspective, it can be contended that they are not interested in knowing whether policing is done under a federal scheme or provincial one. What they are more interested in is results in the form of prevention and detection of crime as well as maintenance of public order.
Sensing the gravity of the situation, this author, as Home Secretary to the Government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, formed a working group with an aim to carry out a complete overhaul of policing. Most important categories of suggested reforms were to re-model the police on the concept of functional specialisation in the areas of investigation, intelligence, watch and ward, reserve police, police accountability, personnel management, education and training, finance and internal audit, crime against women, traffic planning and management, criminal identification, information technology, transport, research and development, legal affairs, welfare, estate management. As part of the reforms process, the proposals were to: frame Police Rules in accordance with the Police Order 2002; fix strength of police stations on the same concept; re-organise police stations with branches like investigation, intelligence and reserve; provide sufficient budget for police station; raise a cyber-crime unit; control financial crimes unit; establish a research and analysis unit; provide smart phone to the force; upgrade forensic science laboratory to international standards; set up a school of intelligence and investigation; launch de-radicalisation programmes; ensure robust and upgraded bomb disposal; and install GSM Monitoring System both active and passive, and close circuit security cameras with command and control systems (Secure City).
What is most distressing is that most of these proposals could not be implemented either due to insufficient financial resources coupled with systemic lethargy. It is, therefore, important to underscore that mere legislation never cures a grave problem. Public security requires heavy investment and high priority in the domain of governance. Policing can only be improved if overall governance improves in the country. In the case of policing, it requires security for the tenure of the office of all functionaries for consistency of policies and delivery of service. The rule of law in general, and Civil Servants Act and Police Order 2002 in particular — as showcased in Anita Turab’s and AD Khwaja’s case — require uniform application of laws and policies in all provinces and in the capital city of Islamabad. However, the tragedy is that while the principle of sanctity of tenure is being only applied to Sindh, it is brazenly violated in the case of the federal government and other provinces.
The lamentable fact, for which citizens should be rightly concerned, is that despite so much fanfare about reforms and modernisation, policing still suffers from problems of poor intelligence, inadequate investigation, reluctance in registering cases, sense of indifference, haughty temperament and poor management of urban riots. Improvement and better perception management is only possible when the governments provide the necessary budget to make the concepts a reality.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2019.
Amid lofty claims of perception improvement, Police Reforms have remained a buzz phrase among the political parties and other public opinion leaders. The only meaningful change in this regard, however, can be attributed to the initiative of ushering Police Order 2002. The order aimed at introducing structural changes, with a focus on independent police service subject to law, independent prosecution service and functional specialisation. Critics say that though the Order augured well for the officers of the Police Service of Pakistan as it resulted in addition of new posts to the higher hierarchy, it hardly changed the lot of the lower level of the system. Mere proclamation of law is not the be all and end all of reforms as all reforms and concepts when translated into reality have their own financial implications.
The Police Order 2002 also experienced the same fate. Despite being laced with statutory provisions of separation of investigation and functional specialisation, no substantive work had been done within that domain. The system lingered on with old archaic methods with no improvement in training towards functional specialisation in cases of homicide, kidnapping for ransom, hostage crisis, offences under terrorism, money laundering and riot control.
To further problematise the situation, while the Police Order 2002 was still being experimented, the provincial governments of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh put an end to the federal character of policing by enacting new provincial police laws while Islamabad Police operates under the Police Act 1861. From the citizens’ perspective, it can be contended that they are not interested in knowing whether policing is done under a federal scheme or provincial one. What they are more interested in is results in the form of prevention and detection of crime as well as maintenance of public order.
Sensing the gravity of the situation, this author, as Home Secretary to the Government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, formed a working group with an aim to carry out a complete overhaul of policing. Most important categories of suggested reforms were to re-model the police on the concept of functional specialisation in the areas of investigation, intelligence, watch and ward, reserve police, police accountability, personnel management, education and training, finance and internal audit, crime against women, traffic planning and management, criminal identification, information technology, transport, research and development, legal affairs, welfare, estate management. As part of the reforms process, the proposals were to: frame Police Rules in accordance with the Police Order 2002; fix strength of police stations on the same concept; re-organise police stations with branches like investigation, intelligence and reserve; provide sufficient budget for police station; raise a cyber-crime unit; control financial crimes unit; establish a research and analysis unit; provide smart phone to the force; upgrade forensic science laboratory to international standards; set up a school of intelligence and investigation; launch de-radicalisation programmes; ensure robust and upgraded bomb disposal; and install GSM Monitoring System both active and passive, and close circuit security cameras with command and control systems (Secure City).
What is most distressing is that most of these proposals could not be implemented either due to insufficient financial resources coupled with systemic lethargy. It is, therefore, important to underscore that mere legislation never cures a grave problem. Public security requires heavy investment and high priority in the domain of governance. Policing can only be improved if overall governance improves in the country. In the case of policing, it requires security for the tenure of the office of all functionaries for consistency of policies and delivery of service. The rule of law in general, and Civil Servants Act and Police Order 2002 in particular — as showcased in Anita Turab’s and AD Khwaja’s case — require uniform application of laws and policies in all provinces and in the capital city of Islamabad. However, the tragedy is that while the principle of sanctity of tenure is being only applied to Sindh, it is brazenly violated in the case of the federal government and other provinces.
The lamentable fact, for which citizens should be rightly concerned, is that despite so much fanfare about reforms and modernisation, policing still suffers from problems of poor intelligence, inadequate investigation, reluctance in registering cases, sense of indifference, haughty temperament and poor management of urban riots. Improvement and better perception management is only possible when the governments provide the necessary budget to make the concepts a reality.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 26th, 2019.