Curbing police excesses

THERE has been a marked increase in cases of abuse of authority by the police after the introduction of the new enforcement and investigation system earlier this year. Recently, there was a harrowing incident of the death of a suspect in the custody of the Nawankot police in Lahore. Grieving relatives of the deceased as well as news reports spoke of severe torture motivated by personal enmity of the investigating officer as the cause of death. Some days later, the Karachi police needlessly roughed up senior lawyers in the high court building while trying to round up a person ordered to be released. Reports from Gujrat have indicated registration of false cases against many innocent people for allegedly possessing illicit arms.

The sheer number of such incidents strongly suggests that there are serious shortcomings in the manner in which complaints about police highhandedness are dealt with. The police are themselves the investigators in many such cases. Often, they deny complainants the right to press charges. While Article 4 of the Constitution provides that “no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law”, the practical position is quite the reverse. Higher police authorities, while aware of the practices adopted by the lower ranks, conveniently look the other way. In some cases, the government is a party to police highhandedness.

While the superior judiciary has provided relief where police misconduct has been brought to court, most victims of police highhandedness do not have the means or connections to seek legal redress. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of an effective, independent mechanism. Unfortunately, the new Police Order also does not go far enough to deal with this issues. It appears to be a measure that recognizes the need for redressal of citizens’ grievances, but it does not provide any independent machinery to investigate police excesses and prosecute delinquent officials.

The Lahore High Court, while dealing with a petition seeking to restrain the police from abusing the powers vested in them under the law, had recently observed that “the Zila Nazim and the Public Safety Committee referred to in... the Police Order have once again been made dependent upon the goodwill of the police itself to check its own misdeeds”. This points to a major flaw in the new legislation. The court further observed: “If the petitioner and others similarly placed are directed to approach the Zila Nazim or the Public Safety Committee for redressal of their grievances, such persons will find themselves at the mercy of police functionaries who may not have the desire to investigate complaints made against the police itself. If, on the other hand, the petitioner and others like him are left to fend for themselves and to prosecute errant police officers through ordinary legal process, they will be condemned to an unequal contest considering the resources at the disposal of the police.” This highlights the lack of an effective and impartial mechanism to redress complaints arising out of abuse of police power. Not only is it essential to set up an independent investigating and prosecuting body to tackle such cases, but it is also necessary to institute action against police officials who transgress the limits of law and morality.

NAB’s new strategy

AS part of a national anti-corruption strategy, the government is said to have decided to empower the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to keep an eye on all contractual financial dealings, inclusive of defence procurements, worth Rs 50 million and above at all stages of implementation - from signing to completion. This was revealed by a NAB spokesman at a press briefing in Islamabad on Thursday. Already in place is a Public Procurement Regulation Authority which will lay down the broad parameters that will have to be complied with while signing any deal. All ministries and departments of the government, without exception, will be required to provide copies of contract documents relating to financial transactions of the specified amount to NAB which will scrutinize them to ensure against any element of wrongdoing being there. NAB will be authorized to pick up any case or any official for detailed investigation and prosecution. It will have jurisdiction overriding those of all other anti-corruption agencies. The economic crime wing of the FIA is also to be merged with NAB.

There are already a host of organizations meant to check misuse, wastage and embezzlement of funds, bribery and kickbacks. These have not succeeded in significantly reducing the incidence of corruption. The reason is to be found in the general perception that only those on the wrong side of authority are hauled up. NAB has not been able to clear this perception. What is really needed is a streamlining of the working of anti-corruption agencies and ensuring their impartiality. At the political level, the public accounts committees of parliament and the provincial assemblies need to be strengthened and made to function the year round. Their operations should also be made transparent. If noting on files and in summaries presented to the cabinet are to be kept a secret and shielded from public scrutiny as provided for in the draft Freedom of Information Law, honesty and transparency will remain an elusive prospect.

Drive against cartels

THE decision by the Monopoly Control Authority (MCA) to investigate the pricing and business practices of shipping companies and those involved in the manufacture of automobiles, cables, polyester fibre and cement is welcome insofar as it seeks to protect the rights of consumers from the abuse of monopoly power. In fact, large corporations behaving like cartels is injurious not only to consumers’ interests but also to those of potential entrants into that particular business sector. The only problem with the MCA’s decision is that its power to control or regulate such anti-consumer and anti-competition companies is at best marginal. Under the law, the most that the MCA can do is to fine an errant company for an initial maximum amount of Rs 100,000 and a further penalty of Rs 10,000 per day for every day that a company continues to violate the law. Given that cartels and monopolies would most likely be companies with large turnovers and profits, such penalties are unlikely to make them mend their ways.

The intention here is not to pre-judge the issue or discourage the MCA from going ahead with the proposed investigation of cartels and monopolies but to stress the point that unless the authority gets more powers, it will not succeed in its objective, so that we will continue to have companies that collude to fix prices for their own profit and to manipulate the market environment to avoid competition. Hopefully, the new government will give this matter the priority it deserves.