KARACHI, May 2: The proposal to divide the city into three administrative police zones, each to be headed by a DIG rank officer, has been widely criticised as experts do not foresee any improvement caused by the restructuring of the police force.
Well-placed sources said that although the final touches were being given to the proposal, the idea of amalgamating the operations and investigation wings of the police at the level of DIG was against the spirit of the devolution plan envisaged by President Pervez Musharraf, as well as being in violation of the Police Order 2002 and the Police Order (Amendment) Ordinance, 2007. The proposed system would lead to concentrating powers at the level of DIGs instead of devolving them to the grassroots level.
Despite opposition from various quarters, the Sindh government seems to be bent upon implementing the proposal of three DIGs, who would look after the affairs of both operations and investigation. Since the implementation of the Police Order 2002 some five years back, the police have been divided into two wings ie operations and investigation. A DIG rank officer was appointed to head the operations wing and two DIGs were appointed to head the investigation wing, as it was further divided into two zones.
Commenting upon the issue, the Adviser to the Sindh Chief Minister on Home Affairs, Wasim Akhtar, said: “The proposal of dividing the police into three zones is being considered and is in the final stages.”
When his attention was directed towards other violations of the Police Order 2002, such as posting of more than 50 per cent sub-inspectors at the posts of station house officers (SHOs), Mr Akhtar said: “Yes, this is an issue. We have analysed the past performance of many inspectors who were potentially fit to become SHOs, but many of them carried allegations of various types and they could not be posted as SHOs. Ultimately, when we have no choice, we have to post some sub-inspector rank officials as SHOs.”
Similarly, he said that the town investigation officer (TIOs) should be a DSP rank officer, but many posts were occupied by inspector rank officers, which would also be against the Police Order, he said, adding that again there was a dearth of DSP rank officers meeting the criteria and in their absence, inspectors had to be posted as TIOs.
However, police sources and experts said that the creation of zones was a political decision rather than an administrative one. They claimed that in the earlier system, the city was divided into five zones and each zone was headed by an SSP rank officer. The introduction of three zones, to be headed by DIGs, would tantamount to pleasing DIGs and reducing the role of SP and DSP rank officers.
In the existing set-up, town police officers (TPOs) directly issue orders to SHOs, minimising the role of DSPs and after the implementation of the new proposed system, the SHOs would be directly in contact with their DIGs, eliminating the roles of TPOs, SPs and DSPs.
The sources said that it was a routine practice that if two SHOs had a quarrel over an incident occurring on the borders of two police stations, it was generally sorted out by DIG operations. In the proposed system, such a quarrel would arise between two DIGs and would not be confined to SHOs.
The sources said that the proposal was strongly opposed by former Inspector General Jehangir Mirza, but his objection was overruled.
Mr Mirza, who retired on April 14, while talking to Dawn, said: “Implementing the proposed system of three DIGs in the city will lead to creating operational problems. Besides, the proposed system is in violation of the spirit of the Police Order. Before implementing or considering such an option, an amendment has to be made to the Police Order as there is no provision in the Police Order 2002 to appoint DIGs as zonal heads in the capital city.”
Those who masterminded the idea of dividing the police force into three zones seem to be obsessed with the administrative structure of the rangers, who had divided their structure into three zones, sources said, adding that the policymakers wanted to make the administrative set-up of the police compatible with that of the rangers, which might not only create administrative and operational problems for the police but would also lead to increasing public grievances.
The experts were of the view that the rangers’ administrative set-up -- provided they continue to stay in the city -- should be compatible with the police and not vice versa.
