Doubts on crackdown on display of weapons

Security guards taken into custody, including those on duty

Arms dealer Muhammad Jahanzeb reads a book at his shop in Darra Adamkhel, about 35 kilometres south of Peshawar. PHOTO: AFP

KARACHI:

As the police in Karachi continue the crackdown on the display of firearms, there remains confusion over whether the ban applies to private security guards who are on duty.

Dozens have been arrested over the last three days, including at least 37 people in district South.

The crackdown was ordered following the brazen attack on the Karachi police office, after which the Sindh Home Department issued a notification on February 23 barring the display and carrying of firearms. The order was enforced from March 1.

However, the Karachi police chief, AIG Javed Alam Odho, has since sent a letter to the deputy inspector generals for East, West and South zones, instructing them not to arrest private guards of registered security companies.

“It is reported that private security guards of registered security companies are being harassed by the field officers and detained unnecessarily. This illegal practice shall be stopped fortwith,” it stated.

According to the letter, the notice issued by the Sindh Home Department made it clear that the restrictions did not apply to security guards employed by registered security companies while on duty.

The letter further warned that departmental action would be taken against those making such arrests while instructing the three zonal DIGs to immediately convey to their subordinate officers to refrain from engaging in such unlawful actions.

Arrests continue

Meanwhile, police in district South district registered 33 cases during the last three days against individuals for displaying weapons, while arresting 37 people. This included private security guards.

Guards bailed

The judicial magistrate South approved the bail of security guards on a bond of Rs10,000 each for carrying arms without uniform. The private guards were arrested for exhibiting arms while sitting at the back of a double cabin.

The defence counsel argued that an assistant sub-inspector (SI) was the complainant in the case, which the law requires it to be sub-inspector.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, March 5th, 2023.

Load Next Story