THE station house officer (SHO) and the patwari are perhaps the two most hated characters from the colonial administrative legacy that Pakistan inherited. The SHO’s job is to administer the affairs of a police station. In the hierarchy of Pakistan’s police, he is regarded as the most influential person in a case but is often criticised by the courts, the public and the media. In popular perception, the SHO has a ‘magic wand’ which can make all police-related problems go away.

For police stations that serve large populations or deal with a higher incidence of crime, the SHO is usually of the rank of an inspector. Smaller police stations in rural areas are headed by a sub-inspector.

Notwithstanding the fact that an SHO is of a relatively junior rank, he is usually held responsible for operational failures. In the power games of persons of influence, SHOs are often used as pawns or treated like disposable items. Why do these policemen alone get blamed for corrupt practices? What about the efficiency of the rest of the chain of command?

To reform the office of the SHO, in 1982 the Cabinet Committee of Emoluments of SHOs and in 1983 the Cabinet Committee on Determining the Status of SHOs were tasked with assessing the ground realities. Three members of the latter were specifically tasked with assessing the work and efficiency of SHOs as previously appointed commissions and committees had ignored the area.

In the power games, SHOs are often used as pawns.

Is it education, training, ethical values or the quality of the police culture that would improve service delivery? In the recent past, the Punjab police inducted well-educated inspectors, including law graduates and a few engineers and doctors. But the experiment did not achieve the desired results. It can be deduced, therefore, that education alone will not reform the office of the SHO. What is needed are improvements in the station environment and the training, accountability, public oversight, and making better budgets available to the police stations.

The Cabinet Committee of Emoluments of SHOs recommended that an intermediate degree be the minimum educational standard for the office. Even so, especially in the rural areas, policemen who do not meet this requirement are appointed SHOs. We need rigid criteria to be enforced.

In the 1980s, a sub-inspector and an inspector were placed in Grade 7 and 14 respectively. This was later upgraded to 14 and 16, but it did not improve public service delivery. Similarly, through raising the rank of the person in charge of some selected police stations from sub-inspector and inspector to assistant superintendent of the police, Article 21(4) of the original Police Order 2002 tried to improve the quality of supervision. However, the move was made in isolation of ground realities. Improvements are not possible through merely one officer; again, the station environment and the capacity building of junior ranking officers need to be worked on concurrently.

The Cabinet Committee of Emoluments of SHOs also suggested that the selection of SHOs not be left to the deputy inspector-general, and be processed by the inspector-general instead. In practice, however, the task is left to the sole discretion of the district police officer. The committee also suggested that there should be an age limit beyond which officers should not be appointed as SHOs.

In 2015, the Sindh police constituted a board with the idea of creating a pool of 200 to 250 officers that were to be rotated and posted as SHOs. Though this was a move worth appreciating, if postings on senior slots are not the outcomes of transparent procedures, how will such boards prove their worth?

By introducing an “SHOs pool”, the KP police is also trying to improve the quality of the office. The initiative may reduce political in­­terference and enhance transparency. This is a diagnostic initiative taken on the basis that the quality of input will have an impact on public service delivery. The tenure of an SHO is directly linked with efficiency, but at an average the tenure of an SHO in Pakistan is about six months.

The National Police Bureau (NBP) needs to assess present conditions and consolidate the tasks to be performed by SHOs. In the light of the NPB’s recommendations, special courses for SHOs should be designed and imparted. Further, the incompatibility between the responsibilities of SHOs and the grade to which they belong needs to be reviewed and bridged.

Unceremonious removals, suspensions and reductions to junior ranks of SHOs badly affected their morale and eroded the authority of the office. To make SHOs professional, neutral, humane, effective and public friendly, it is crucial to free the slot from the clutches of vested interests and make him accountable to the public safety apparatus. Otherwise, policing will remain an elite-centric service and the ultimate sufferers will be the citizens.

The writer is a police officer.

Published in Dawn, March 22nd, 2016