June 25, 2007	Monday	Jamadi-us-Sani 09, 1428

LAHORE, June 24: The government and police have managed to marginalise the role of public safety and police complaint commissions for fear of loss of authority and exposure to public accountability.

“The commissions are ineffective because the provincial governments believe that they will curtail their control over the police. And the police resist the bodies because they simply abhor of public accountability or guidance which, they fear, will expose their working,” say a number of senior officials whom Dawn interviewed to ascertain the status of the commissions introduced in the Police Order 2002.

The commissions were introduced as a mechanism of external accountability of the police on the pattern of democratic countries in the world.

According to the official record, of the 100 districts in the country, the district public safety and police complaint commissions have been established in only 86. These bodies do not meet regularly because of the alleged lack of interest by their members.

The National Public Safety Commission was formed on Aug 18, 2006, and is functional. But the Islamabad District Public Safety Commission and the Federal Police Complaint Authority have yet to be constituted.

The Police Order 2002 had introduced public safety commissions, police complaint authorities and criminal justice coordination committees for external or public accountability of the police. Prior to that the police were exposed to only internal accountability, which the Police Order 2002 retained. The system was acceptable to the police trained as a paramilitary force naturally considering people as their subjects.

But it had many shortcomings. A punishment given by a junior officer could be withdrawn by a senior. No-one would readily agree to conduct an inquiry against a fellow officer. And if one agreed, one would hesitate to write against a fellow officer. As a result, those even dismissed on serious charges were reinstated and detailed against important posts.

Initially, the public safety commissions were formed in many districts but they were browbeaten by the police. Those at the provincial and national levels and in Islamabad could not be formed. The police complaint authorities too were not formed.

The criminal justice coordination committees were formed in every district throughout the country. Headed by district and sessions judges, they became functional soon after the promulgation of the Police Order 2002.

From 2004 to 2006 the Police Order has substantively been changed, curtailing the powers and role of the safety and complaint authorities. The safety commissions and the complaint authorities were subsequently merged.

The National Public Safety Commission’s role of recommending a penal of three police officers for appointment as the provincial police officer (PPO or IGP) was also deleted.

MNAs and MPAs were also included in the district safety and police complaint commissions. The step was taken as politicisation of the institution and undermining the authority of the district governments.

According to officials, these representative public bodies were being ignored despite their reorganisation because of their powers to intervene in the police affairs for the good of people. The safety and complaint commissions could approve and oversee implementation of annual policing plan, submit annual performance reports to the government, evaluate police performance on a quarterly basis and encourage public-police coordination.

They could also recommend to the government to promote integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of the police, receive complaints from the public and take remedial measures, direct the head of a district police to inquire into a complaint of neglect by a functionary and take action, besides conducting a fact-finding inquiry on its own or through an officer not below BS-18.

The federal police complaint authority could also receive complaints from the aggrieved people and take remedial measures, recommend disciplinary action against an inquiry officer for wilful neglect or mishandling a case.

It could also direct the competent authority to take departmental action against an official based on the findings of the inquiry or registration of a criminal case, and request the chief justices of high courts in serious cases to appoint district and sessions judges for a judicial inquiry.

Officials said the police as a representative of the state were responsible for law enforcement and establishment of the writ of the government, but tend to use discretion during such duties. The discretion led to misuse of power like highhandedness, torture, implication and unlawful custody, they said, adding society therefore needed some watchdogs to control these discretions.

They said the Police Order 2002 was made after consultative process and an attempt towards democratisation of the police functions. It now required implementation in letter and spirit because it had been amended in 2004, 2005 and 2006 according to the wishes of the provincial governments.

They said if the reforms in the shape of the Police Order were not implemented, the police would keep using their discretion, continue to be used for political purposes, and not improve their image. And the financial aid of $350 million given by the Asian Development Bank under the Access to Justice Programme would go down the drain as its major chunk was being spent on the force, they said.