ONE of the most startling revelations during my brief tenure as federal law minister in the last caretaker government was that the police force in all the provinces is not governed under a uniform law and that there is serious confusion amongst the police officers in this regard.

This I found out during a legal workshop where I and fellow cabinet member Arif Nizami were present. Several police officers from various provinces, when engaged in discussion, informally conceded that they were not sure about the statutory mandate under which they are functioning. They said some provinces were applying Police Order 2002 while others were disregarding it.

The next day I commissioned my ministry to undertake an appraisal of the ground situation and asked for a brief on the implementation status of police law in provinces.

It turned out that there were good reasons for confusion amongst the police officials. Balochistan had disregarded Police Order 2002 and opted to enact a new provincial police act in 2011. It was largely drawn from the 1861 Police Act. Punjab preferred to implement the Police Order 2002. Sindh follows the Police Act 1861, having reverted to it after abolishing Police Order 2002, which is at least theoretically followed in KP.

The structural reform that the new minister for interior is deliberating should factor in the planned application of the police law in the provinces. Likewise, after the incident of the killing of tourists in Gilgit-Baltistan, it has become necessary that laws relating to the police force in the said area also be re-examined.

True, after the 18th Amendment, policing and law and order are functions of the province but those functions need to be performed under a framework coordinated by the federal interior ministry. This is because the law and order situation in a province can at any time escalate into a threat to the federation itself.

Everyone respects the will of the provinces. It remains the choice of the respective provincial government whether they wish the police apparatus on their territory to function under the Police Order 2002 or the Police Act 1861 or any other new law.

My concern is that the said political choice be exercised in coordination with the federal interior ministry as part of a master plan to ensure that law and order is upheld in all the federating units.

This is also important because the police officers join a federal service under the Civil Servants Act. They are part of a single police cadre. Whereas now, their operational functions are to govern in different provinces under different laws. This naturally creates confusion among them about their own mandate. Such confusion is hardly motivating for a police officer.

The success of the police reforms will also eventually depend on the level of clarity that the federal government achieves vis-à-vis the police force’s legal mandate. The Police Order 2002 involves a community role in policing functions and appointments etc. The Police Act 1861, on the other hand, provides for a very limited role in this area. Thus the reform of the police deployed in the province where Police Order 2002 is applicable will be undertaken differently than the reform of the police force in the province where the Police Act is applicable.

The next stage would be the mode of adoption of the Police Order or Police Act by the provinces. That will also raise legal and operational issues. Any province may wish to adopt the Police Act with some amendments in the form of provincial legislation, as Balochistan did. Others may choose to make their own enactments based on some different modules.

This will create diversity in the police mandate that is more confusing. Therefore, it is important that the federal interior ministry takes charge of coordinating police legislation implemented by the provincial governments as well as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir.

Policing plays a primary role in preventing crime. The traditional police officer always had a very healthy liaison with the community he was responsible for policing. Later, due to the militarisation of the police on account of counterterrorism operations, the force moved away from community policing functions. The federal government needs to balance these roles of the police force and for that the starting point is to understand the applicable police law in each province.

A motivated police force that is clear about its legal mandate can play a major role in the prevention of crimes including terrorism. Its effectiveness can reduce the role of the armed forces or other forces like the Rangers. An effective police force will decrease reliance of the executive on calling in the armed forces in aid of civil power, time and again.

The long-term deployment of the armed forces in cities and territories is always counterproductive. They unwittingly move into a controlling role instead of remaining in an assisting mode. This has political ramifications.

If the police become effective and there’s clarity in their mandate, they will curb the reflex of the executive to call in the armed forces whenever they are expecting a law and order situation, apart from reducing the duration of the deployment of the civilian or regular armed forces.

The writer is a former caretaker law minister.

ahmersoofi@hotmail.com