Correcting the police ‘dis’-order

The Police Act of 1861 remained a federal law for 141 years as well as the sole guiding principle when it came to matters pertaining to the police. This colonial recipe was replaced by the Police Order (PO) 2002. The colonial police law had not met with any resistance from the elite class even though sane voices within the police leadership and civil society persistently demanded its burial. Beneficiaries of the system, however, always remained possessive about maintaining the status quo.

The Police Act 1861 was in force in the whole of British India except in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. The states were empowered to frame rules but were not empowered to amend the Act. Likewise, procedural law and the penal code police law were also inherited from our colonial masters. The Police Act 1861 was promulgated as a reaction to the 1857 war of independence. The edifice of policing in India and Pakistan still works on the foundations of an outdated model.

With much fanfare, in 2002, the federal government promulgated the new police order. Prior to its promulgation, different governments constituted 21 committees and commissions but their recommendations were either shelved or not implemented. The post-18^th Amendment scenario gave birth to a debate regarding the validity of the police order. Sindh and Balochistan reverted to the colonial Police Act. With a few amendments, Punjab adopted PO 2002. Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is in the process of reviewing the PO and intends to adopt it, with certain amendments.

Though policing has been both a federal and provincial subject, primarily it has remained the exclusive domain of the provinces. Owing to certain considerations, the provinces never came around to introducing police reforms, hence in 2002, the federal government was left with no option but to draft a police law for the provinces. This dichotomy can best be judged from the fact that although this was a federal initiative, the PO 2002 has never been implemented in the federal capital, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

The PO 2002 was not a product of parliamentary deliberations and public lobbying, but was still a far better recipe to police the country than the model prevalent at the time. It primarily derived inspiration from the Japanese model, introducing concepts like policing as a service, security of tenure, selection procedures for police chiefs, tiers of public safety, functional and financial autonomy, formal coordination among different actors of the criminal justice system and functional specialisation.

The ruling elite alone cannot be held responsible for its non-implementation. Vested interests within the police and other stakeholders were also not enthusiastic about seeing a democratic and public-friendly face of the Pakistani police. In our context, the edifice of policing is colonial and public expectations are democratic hence these are not compatible with each other. The PO ended up being a buffet for different stakeholders hence everyone took from it what suited them and its complete implementation remained unfulfilled.

The original police order used terms like “public” and “service” 266 and 37 times respectively. On the contrary, the Police Act 1861 was totally averse to such terms. Historically, policing has remained elite-centric, hence public service still does not seem to be a mission for our police. Those who talk against ‘thana culture’, actually strengthened it for their own motives.

The PO entrusted operational and financial autonomy to the IGPs, who were given the status of ex-officio secretaries. With subsequent amendments, however, reluctance within the hierarchy and owing to hidden variables, the offices of the IGPs are yet to translate such ideals into reality. The law and order situation in the country warrants instant decision-making, hence the police leadership needs to be autonomous and responsible for its own decision-making.

The Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CJCC) at the district level has proved to be an effective coordination body. In the CJCC, the district judge, the DPO, the superintendent jail, the prosecutor and the SP investigation deliberate issues pertaining to the criminal justice system. In a few instances, it has been noticed that the committee has not focused on its real mandate, hence rules for the CJCC need to be framed. Judges of the antiterrorism courts need to be incorporated within the CJCC. Such incorporation will help improve the quality of investigation and prosecution of cases of terrorism.

In PO 2002, the investigation and operations functions were separated with the objective being to improve the quality of investigation as the friction between these two functions affects the public interest. On the pretext of having unity of command, the investigation network was placed under the DPO, which compromised the ideals incorporated in PO 2002. The police leadership should understand that the public interest is more important than having unity of command. Also, under PO 2002, governments are supposed to provide the cost of investigation but complainants are unaware of such facilitation. Disbursement of the cost of investigation requires more elaborate and transparent procedures.

A problem with the PO 2002 was that although it was a post-9/11 development, ironically its antiterrorism apparatus remains a missing link. Introduction of a separate general police area for capital cities was another landmark step but due to internal vested interests, the institution of capital city police did not develop. The guaranteed autonomy was silently compromised between the appointing authorities and the capital city police chiefs. Though federal and provincial capitals have expanded enormously, we still treat these organisations as small rural districts. We need to ensure operational and organisational classifications of rural and urban districts.

Restructuring of police stations is another area needing serious attention. The police station is a hub of policing and public service but service delivery is still not a priority here. Policing in our part of the world not only requires professionalism but also a magic wand. If we are really interested in public service, we need to focus on enhanced financing of police stations. Otherwise, the corrupt within the police will continue sucking the blood of helpless citizens. A subservient police will never be able to protect vulnerable segments. Only a professional police can improve the state of fundamental human rights and the image of the government.

Despite PO 2002 requiring this, the organisational restructuring of the police has still not been completed or implemented fully. We should realise that real reforms are never police-centric. They need to be public-centric. The current challenge warrants a uniform police law. In the Pakistan Penal Code, the code of criminal procedure, recruitment processes and the promotion criteria are all uniform, then why is there a need for different police laws in the provinces? In Europe, which is a torchbearer of civil liberties, there is an intense debate going on to establish uniformity in the police services of different countries. By rolling back our colonial baggage, we will be communicating a loud message to the world that we are no longer slaves of colonial passions.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 23^rd, 2015.

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