In January 2018, 27-year-old Naqeebullah Mehsud was murdered by the police in an

‘encounter’ in Karachi. The following year, on January 19, 2019, the Punjab Counter
Terrorism Department (CTD) murdered a couple, their 13-year-old daughter and their
neighbor after opening fire on their car in Sahiwal.

This month alone, Usama Satti and Sultan Nazir were shot dead by law-enforcement
personnel in Islamabad and Karachi respectively. These are not isolated incidents but
reflect the larger and more routine pattern of police brutality and excessive use of force
on the part of law-enforcement agencies (LEAs).

In 2017, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), while examining Pakistan’s initial report
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) observed, at
paragraph 19: “The Committee is concerned by the high incidence of enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings allegedly perpetrated by the police and military
and security forces”. The HRC noted that Pakistan should “ensure that all allegations of…
extrajudicial killings are promptly and thoroughly investigated; all perpetrators are
prosecuted and punished, with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crimes”.

In PLD 2020 SC 310, the Honourable Supreme Court noted, at paragraph 3: “We may
emphasize that it is the constitutional right of the people that their life and properties
are saved and protected by the state and such state functionaries include the police
officials”. Why is there then this culture of impunity that prevails when it comes to the
quest for accountability in the context of extrajudicial executions?

In the last many decades of our existence, Pakistan has never sincerely attempted to
alter its policing model. Colonial laws remain in place, granting widespread and arbitrary
authority to law-enforcement personnel. Let us take a very basic example to illustrate
the problem. A crime is committed against me and I wish to register a First Information
Report (FIR) so I approach the relevant police station. Despite the existence of Section
154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), it is highly likely that the police will resist
registration of the FIR unless I am politically or otherwise influentially connected, or
unless I offer a bribe.

In fact, Transparency International’s 2016 Global Corruption Barometer survey for

countries in the Asia Pacific region revealed that around 70 percent of Pakistanis who
came into contact with the police or the courts had to pay bribes. This is just standard
operating procedure in most police stations, which reflects the problem of inadequate
resources being allocated here.

In a 2020 research study conducted by Nadeem Malik and Tariq Abbas Qureshi, it was
highlighted: “the average cost of living is extremely high… it, therefore, becomes difficult
even for senior police officers to make both ends meet”. What we expect from our
police force is for them to perform with inadequate pay, insufficient training and no
health or other benefits for their service to the nation. In the 2020 study, it was stated:
“the police officers are supposed to be on duty for 16-18 hours without any extra
remuneration, seven days a week, and there are no regular duty rosters in operation”. A
junior officer interviewed during the study disclosed: “the prolonged work hours and
low salaries cause enormous stress and depression among officers”. It is almost as
though we forget law-enforcement personnel are also living, breathing human beings
with emotions, trauma and resentment that build up within them.

Even in the federal capital, one need only drive around post 6pm to see several police
officials standing on the road, relying on the mercy of citizens to get a ride. This is the
state of the police in the federal Capital: that there isn’t even adequate transport
provided to them after they are put on 16-hour shifts. Resentment builds up within the
force, especially when LEAs compare resource allocation between their departments, on
the one hand, and other such forces, on the other.

In 2016, Human Rights Watch (HRW) interviewed several police officers who “openly
admitted to the practice of false or faked ‘encounter killings’, in which police stage an
armed exchange to kill an individual already in custody”. HRW noted, in its exchanges
with law-enforcement personnel, “that abuses can often be explained, if not justified, by
the considerable pressures placed upon them”. Among the problems police officials
listed were “organizational shortcomings, inadequate training and resources, lack of
requisite funds, poor working conditions, and lack of coordination with other law-
enforcement agencies”.

We have seen cries for help from our own LEAs to the state for the last many decades
but no one seems to be willing to listen. That innocent lives will continue to be lost is
just simply accepted because our state and society have become so desensitized to
violence and death. In PLD 1997 Lahore 135, the Honourable Lahore High Court stated,
at paragraph 10: “extrajudicial killing carried out by the police is highly condemnable
because it adversely affects faith in the system. It is not only violative of law but also a
brutal and inhumane act on the part of the police. Such incidents also tend to shake the
legal framework of our society which in turn loses its trust in the judicial system. Under
the law, police is [sic] to arrest the criminals and to investigate the crime but they cannot
exceed their limits”.

This is exactly where we are today: living in a system where there is absolutely no
guarantee for life and security, and where the same is simply brushed off as unfortunate
or condemnable by those in the corridors of power. Police reform is nowhere on the
agenda and even where it has been half-heartedly put on the agenda, the 24
commissions that have been established to make recommendations in this regard have
achieved very little. This reflects a general and persistent state of apathy towards the
problem, which cannot go on in this way.

Four major recommendations can be made vis-a-vis police reform. First, improved
training and resource allocation to LEAs. Second, a comprehensive review of all colonial
laws. Third, securing the independence of LEAs by ensuring non-interference by other
agencies and politicians in their functioning. Fourth, resolving issues of police
corruption, incompetence and inefficiency by establishing an independent police
commission, modeled along the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC),
which operates in England and Wales.
Police laws evolved gradually, establishing ties between policing, peace and conflict. We
inherited Police Act 1861 that mentions ‘peace’ six times. Sections 13 and 17 quote
powers and procedures for employing additional and special officers. Section 23 ment-
ions duties, including intel gathering. Section 30 relates to regulation of public assem-
blies and processions. The district magistrate, when the office existed, had the power to
negotiate, but Police Order 2002 changed that. It mentioned ‘peace’ 20 and ‘conflict’ 10
times. Article 4 (a) makes it obligatory for officers to protect life, property and liberty.
Article 4(b) mentions preservation and promotion of public peace. ‘Public safety’ in
chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 introduce for the first time the concept of functional public
safety.

Articles 37, 44, 49, 61, 73, 86 elaborate on the tiers of public safety commissions. But
red tape and different police laws in provinces rendered PSCs non-existent or
dysfunctional. Chapter X provides inspiration for setting up police complaint authorities
but their fate resembles the PSCs’. Article 168 explains the need for citizen-police liaison
committees.

KP is the first province with its own police law Police Act 2017. It mentions ‘dispute’ 11
times. Section 73 authorises the IGP to set up dispute resolution councils; 43 DRCs are
functional in 24 districts. Of 44,387 cases, 37 per cent were property-related, 34pc
monetary and 13pc involving family disputes; 44,387 cases were forwarded to DRCs,
with 35,957 (81pc) compromised; in 7,233 (16pc) legal action was taken; 1,197 (3pc) are
pending. DRCs reduced the burden on the overburdened courts and improved local
peace and police image.

In Pakistan, police’s role in managing intrapersonal conflict is overlooked. Such conflicts

(suicides) occur when a person is not at peace with himself. Police are expected to
respond to mental health emergencies and play an important role in community-based
suicide prevention. Suicides can be reduced by ensuring that first-line responders are
trained to recognise the signs of mental illness and suicide risks.