PESHAWAR, May 11: Political agents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas’ agencies would lose their unmatched powers vested in their office under section 40 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, governing the Fata, official sources say.
Draft amendments to FCR’s section 40, making part of the judicial reforms envisaged under the wide-ranging reforms programme the government has drawn up for the Fata, would curtail, upon implementation, the enormous powers currently enjoyed by the political agents.
Sub-section 2-A of FCR’s section 40 empowers the political agent to detain a person (tribal) for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour for a period not exceeding one month.
Under the same section the political authorities can keep him under detention for a period up to three years if he fails to furnish a bond and surety.
Although the Fata reforms package discourages the idea of repealing the most misused section 40 of the FCR (described, in official documents, as “not as such an unjust and draconian law” as referred to by various circles), the draft amendments envisage clipping the PAs’ powers of detaining any tribesman without getting recommendation of council of elders (jirga) as originally stipulated under section 40 (2) of the FCR.
“...but it is its unscrupulous application that has made it so (draconian),” reads the official document, also available with this correspondent.
It adds: “It [section 40] is a knife in the hand of the political authority which can be used as a surgeon’s instrument or as a slaughtering device”.
A high-powered official committee, on whose recommendation reforms programme has been framed for Fata, justifies retaining of this section by stating that it is in line with section 107 of CrPC practised in the settled parts of the country to ensure prevention of crime.
The draft amendments, already approved in February last by Gen Pervez Musharraf (Chief Executive at the time), makes it binding on the PAs to ascertain recommendation of the council of elders (jirga) before acting against any tribesman under section 40 (1).
One of the amendments envisages that surety should be asked for one year only instead of three years as is the case at present.
Similarly, an amendment under section 40 (2) stipulates replacement of the word ‘may’ with ‘shall’ to make it binding on the PAs not to act against any person — under section 40 (1) — without ascertaining recommendations of the jirga.
An amendment under section 45 envisages keeping of an accused in prison for failure to give surety for one year instead of three years.
This would come as a big respite for the tribesmen, especially those who languish in jails for three long years only because of failing to provide surety.
Reduction in imprisonment period has also been sought through another amendment in section 46 (4).
The draft amendment, in this respect, envisages that imprisonment period should not be extended beyond two years, and that too with the approval of the appellate court.
At present, a person failing to furnish surety can be retained in prison — upon completion of his three-year term under section 45 — for three more years.
Draft amendment under section 13(2)(a) envisages that life imprisonment should be fixed at 25 years in keeping with the laws governing the settled parts of the country, increasing the same, in the case of Fata, from 10-year term.
Through another amendment under section 13 (2) (b) the provision of rigorous imprisonment for failing to pay the fine money is recommended to be deleted.