THE 18th Amendment brought new challenges in operational policing, police reforms, public service delivery, accountability, and autonomy. Before debating these, some questions arise. For example, who has the legal mandate to reform the police? Is it the government, parliament or all stakeholders, including elected representatives? Is the best option a consensus-based approach involving all stakeholders? What about the knowledge, capacity, and experience of those entrusted to reform the police?
How do we draw a line between police autonomy and accountability? How can we protect internal police administration from external interference and influences? Who can clearly define public interest? This should not be the sole prerogative of the powerful elite. Public interest should be transparent, helping weaker segments see exercised authority as self-explanatory.
The opponents of police autonomy must realise that this is the 21st century, and a democratic state should distance itself from colonial norms. With an outdated policing model, how can human rights be ensured? How can a relationship between policing, public safety and public service delivery be established? These questions need public attention, parliamentary agenda-setting and media coverage.
As per the essence of the Constitution’s Article 140A, devolving political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to local governments isn’t possible without introducing local law-enforcement services in municipalities to be entrusted with prevention, security, public safety, traffic management, and watch and ward functions.
How can an outdated policing model ensure reforms?
The 18th Amendment was a significant development. It expanded provincial autonomy and empowered provincial legislatures to legislate on many subjects, including law enforcement and policing. The GB, AJK and capital city police forces, Nacta, FIA, ANF, Motorway Police, Railways Police and Frontier Constabulary are federal LEAs. This means that law enforcement in Pakistan is the collaborative domain of the provincial and central governments. Hence, in law enforcement, isolation cannot be afforded.
Clearly demarcated roles of the provincial and federal governments will improve law-enforcement coordination and response among LEAs. Areas such as CT, standardisation of recruitment, training, arms and investigation standards, and research and collaboration with foreign LEAs should be the responsibility of the federal government. Operational law enforcement in provinces should be the provinces’ responsibility. Areas like intelligence collection and sharing, reforms, standardisation, and coordination should be in the concurrent domain.
In national security issues such as CT and internal security policies and strategies, federal institutions’ role is vital. Effective and timely coordination between provincial and federal LEAs is challenging, especially in CT and inter-provincial crime. Coordination gaps between provincial police forces and federal institutions must be plugged. In provinces, operational space for CTDs is significant; but other CT aspects fall under the domain of federal agencies such as FIA, Nacta, ANF, PTA, Pemra, and SBP. This situation warrants a more coordinated response between federal and provincial agencies. The establishment of Nacta at the provincial level will improve CT cooperation and response with CTDs.
Lack of coordination and uniformity among different provincial police forces due to different laws and policies leads to inconsistent policing standards across the country. Provincial police forces also face resource disparities, such as inadequate funding and equipment.
In the last two decades, provinces have increased training facilities, which requires standardisation. The federal government can also be of help in securing collaborations with international partners and donors. Police Order, 2002, provides for standardised accountability, complaint and safety commissions. Since every province has opted for its own police law, each has its own interpretations of public safety and public complaint authorities.
The 18th Amendment provided an opportunity for provinces to reform the police and improve law-enforcement standards. However, the last 15 years have either seen slow-paced police reforms or reversed efforts. Provinces are yet to introduce substantial police reforms based on parliamentary deliberations aimed at improving public safety standards, addressing public complaints, and ensuring accountability of police chiefs. Autonomy should not be interpreted as law enforcement operating in isolation or without being accountable to democratic and public oversight. Instead, it means a more collaborative approach to law enforcement while remaining impartial.
The writer is the author of Pakistan: In Between Extremism and Peace.
X: @alibabakhel
Published in Dawn, April 9th, 2025
