KARACHI: The petitioners of the Police Reforms Case / A. D. Khowaja Case on Sunday expressed their deep disappointment with the decision of the Sindh government to recommend the removal/replacement of Inspector General of Police A. D. Khowaja and non-approval of the Sindh Police (Posting, Transfer and Tenure) Rules, 2017.

In a statement issued here on Sunday, they stated that they were disappointed because both these decisions clearly showed that the Sindh government was trying to subvert the spirit of the Sindh High Court’s ‘landmark’ judgement while ‘pretending’ to implement it.

As to the decision to recommend the removal/ replacement of IG A. D. Khowaja with Sardar Abdul Majeed Dasti, the petitioners pointed out that this was a repeat of the April 1st, 2017 notification through which the Sindh government had removed the IG and this very notification of April 1, 2017 was declared illegal by the Sindh High Court in its judgment.

‘Tenure of the IG cannot be curtailed on such flimsy grounds’

“Moreover, the reason given to recommend the removal/replacement of A. D. Khowaja is that he has been appointed on an OPS basis, is clearly mala fide and an afterthought because it is the very Sindh government who had appointed IG A. D. Khowaja on an OPS basis and even otherwise, the statutory tenure of the IG cannot be curtailed on such flimsy grounds.”

Regarding non-approval of the Sindh Police (Posting, Transfer and Tenure) Rules, 2017 on the ‘flimsy ground’ that these new rules were violative of the Police Rules 1934, the petitioners contended that it was clearly a violation of the SHC judgement.

The petitioners said the decision taken on Saturday by the Sindh Cabinet “merely reflected the mindset of the Sindh government to keep the Sindh police politicised”.

‘Sindh govt’s conflicting stance’

Inspector General of Police A. D. Khowaja on Saturday contended before the Sindh cabinet that the cabinet seemed to have omitted “certain important and material facts”.

He pointed out that he was appointed the IG of Sindh by the Establishment Division on March 12 with concurrence of the provincial government after due consideration of the service profile and rank.

In addition to this, the SHC had considered this very fact and discussed this aspect in Para 72 of the judgement, he added.

In the presentation given by the IG to the cabinet, whose copy was obtained by Dawn on Sunday, he stated that the court was not unmindful of the point that the IG was appointed on the OPS basis by and/or with concurrence of the provincial government and “it does not therefore, now lie with it to argue to the contrary”.

Published in Dawn, October 30th, 2017