Double standards
Why SSP Junejo should be singled out to make an example of by the government is, therefore, something of a puzzle.
The suspension of the Operations SSP, Asmatullah Junejo, for allegedly taking a “lenient position” in respect of registering cases against the former president of a banned organisation, needs careful scrutiny. PHOTO: EXPRESS
The suspension of the Operations SSP, Asmatullah Junejo, for allegedly taking a “lenient position” in respect of registering cases against the former president of a banned organisation, needs careful scrutiny. It will be recalled that SSP Junejo was appointed at the height of the confrontation between the government and protesters in Islamabad. He it was who stood by the government whilst his seniors were less than supportive of it. He suffered injuries when he was severely beaten by protesters who were charging the federal secretariat. He is generally highly regarded as an officer of character, and is seen as professional in his duties. Why he should be singled out to make an example of by the government is, therefore, something of a puzzle.
The suspension turns on what appears to be a relatively routine matter. On December 31, the former president of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Rawalpindi chapter and his gunmen and associates were arrested after illegal weapons were found in their vehicle when it was stopped at a checkpoint. At the time, the capital was subject to Section 144, and the display of weapons of any kind was prohibited — and here lies the issue. The police did not book the men under section 144, and registered separate cases against them under sections of the arms ordinance. The case against SSP Junejo is that he should have used Section 144, and in not doing so was acting “leniently” towards those arrested. A court granted bail to the men the following day. The police contend that as the weapons were not being openly displayed, they could not charge the men with displaying them as per Section 144. The suspension of SSP Junejo seems arbitrary, and sits uneasily beside the fact that the Lal Masjid cleric, against whom an FIR is extant, has still not been arrested. No officer has been suspended or reprimanded for their ‘leniency’ in the matter of not arresting Maulana Abdul Aziz, and SSP Junejo may be seen as the victim of a knee-jerk reaction. His early reinstatement is desirable. As is the early arrest of Maulana Abdul Aziz.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2015.
The suspension turns on what appears to be a relatively routine matter. On December 31, the former president of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Rawalpindi chapter and his gunmen and associates were arrested after illegal weapons were found in their vehicle when it was stopped at a checkpoint. At the time, the capital was subject to Section 144, and the display of weapons of any kind was prohibited — and here lies the issue. The police did not book the men under section 144, and registered separate cases against them under sections of the arms ordinance. The case against SSP Junejo is that he should have used Section 144, and in not doing so was acting “leniently” towards those arrested. A court granted bail to the men the following day. The police contend that as the weapons were not being openly displayed, they could not charge the men with displaying them as per Section 144. The suspension of SSP Junejo seems arbitrary, and sits uneasily beside the fact that the Lal Masjid cleric, against whom an FIR is extant, has still not been arrested. No officer has been suspended or reprimanded for their ‘leniency’ in the matter of not arresting Maulana Abdul Aziz, and SSP Junejo may be seen as the victim of a knee-jerk reaction. His early reinstatement is desirable. As is the early arrest of Maulana Abdul Aziz.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2015.