LAHORE, March 8: The Police Order 2002 was wrongly interpreted to authorise the watch and ward section to register FIR, claims one of the top policemen in the province.

The officer, who wants not to be named, blames an influential colleague in the watch and ward section of Lahore police for the fault when the law was first implemented.

“The man did want to keep some investigation authority with him so he got the law interpreted in a way that FIR to be registered by the Watch and Ward people.”

The interpretation was replicated in other police regions too and thus no district police officer (DPO) in the province let this power go out of his hands, he adds.

“Logically speaking, the official who does and will not visit the crime scene cannot be expected to properly pen down the FIR, the basis of further probe into the crime,” he argues.

The interpretation, according to him, has multiplied people’s problems who have to approach the watch and ward officials for the registration of their cases and then run after the investigators for further action.

The top officer also pointed out some other lacunae in the enforcement of the order. These are:

1) Supervisory officers have been allowed to interfere in investigation in the name of supervision contrary to clear directions of the Lahore High Court on many occasions.

2) Unity of command in the force has been compromised as neither the government nor the police leadership made necessary rules to streamline working of the force and delegate the power/authority at appropriate levels as envisaged by the law.

3) Just to accommodate the newly-promoted officers, many superficial new posts at the rank of additional inspector general have been created, lowering prestige as well as utility of the office besides making the senior rank of DIG redundant.

The regions should have been headed by the additional IGs with sufficient delegation of provincial police officer (PPO)’s powers and by including the city districts in their area of jurisdiction (article 11,16& 21 of the Order) for supervision and co-ordination in many police functions like inter-district crime, law & order and security matters. But how the regional DIGs will ensure co-ordination and operational control on behalf of the PPO with additional IGs managing the force at city districts?

4) The new law has provided strict accountability of police officers through various internal and external disciplinary measures/bodies (Articles 37&73) but the same are yet to be put in place since neither the police hierarchy nor the governments are much interested.

5) The law has declared the PPO as ex-officio secretary to the provincial government (Article 11) and is exercising some powers under the provision. He requires more powers to transfer a police officer from one general police area to another in the capacity of ex-officio secretary to the government. But still no amendment has been made in the rules of business since no provision regarding ex-officio secretary to the government exists in the present rules of business.

6) Rules have been compromised to promote favourites on the basis of cadre seniority while the law provides for the promotion of inspectors and DSPs on the basis of provincial seniority (Article 7).

7) In another glaring example of misplaced priorities, the basic field unit (police station) responsible to fight crime and maintain law & order has been ignored as most police stations are housed in dilapidated and rented buildings and the staff poorly paid.

“But, surprisingly, the government chose to create a new separate well-paid highway patrolling force with the construction of new posts at a cost of billions of rupees. The overall role of this force in the fight against crime will remain negligible compared to the expenditure incurred upon them,” he said. —Amjad Mahmood