REPORTS of kidnapping and the abduction of children have emerged as a serious issue in recent months across Pakistan. Earlier this month, the Peshawar Police, with the help of the Intelligence Bureau, arrested a gang which, shockingly, included doctors, lady health visitors and nurses, involved in the abduction and trading of newborns. The arrest of the gang, although reassuring, is distressing at the same time. The gang leader had been arrested by Islamabad Police in 2015 for similar crimes, and was subsequently released on bail.

Why can’t criminals and repeat offenders involved in such odious crimes be brought to justice? The answer to this question from actors of the criminal justice system (CJS) would entangle us in a ‘blame game’ in which no one is a winner and the citizens are the ultimate losers.

A couple of months ago, I had the privilege of attending a discussion on CJS arranged by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency and presided over by the vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council. Leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association, PBC and the prosecutor general Punjab were present along with political and media representatives. Disappointment, contempt and hostility towards the police and lack of respect in different organs of the CJS for each other were alarmingly obvious in the session.

How can the justice system operate when there is no trust among its components?

The problem with the CJS is not just lack of funds, weak laws and poor skills. An equally troubling aspect is the disconnect between its various actors including the police, judiciary, lawyers, prosecution and prison personnel.

This disconnect is very evident in incidents such as lawyers assaulting police investigators and judges of the lower courts. This creates pressure for other important actors of the system. The courts blame the police for defective investigation and lawyers for seeking endless adjournments. The lawyers complain of poor training, low rewards and insufficient facilities in the courts. Police officers grumble about the difficult standards set for evidence collection; non-availability of witnesses; the dearth of witness protection programmes; and ridiculing and humiliating behaviour in court. Prosecutors bemoan their status as ‘poor relatives’ of the CJS. This generates a narrative which has a paralysing effect on the wheels of justice.

The dysfunctional relationship has serious social and legal costs — the acquittal of terrorists, conviction of the innocent and fast-tracked justice for the powerful and inordinate delays for the not so well-connected. Importantly, it pushes people towards desperation instead of giving them hope.

The clearly flailing wheels of the CJS thus need to be aligned first. All the organs of the justice system are structurally interdependent and cannot carry out their responsibilities if they work in isolation. Any kind of capacity-building, legislative and monetary support would founder on the rock of self-righteousness unless the relevant actors are constructively engaged to collaborate in the public interest.

Appropriate institutional arrangements are critical to reducing the disconnect because they can promote inclusive dialogue within the justice system. The current institutional arrangements are set out in Police Order 2002 (which provides for district criminal justice coordination committees (DCJCC). Headed by a district and sessions judge, such a committee includes the district heads of police, prosecution, investigation, prisons, parole and probation as members. These committees continue to function in Punjab and KP to date whereas in Balochistan and Sindh they were dissolved with the repeal of Police Order 2002 in 2011.

The DCJCCs’ impact since their inception remains insignificant mainly because there is no institutional arrangement at the provincial level to watch and evaluate their performance. They could have played a better role in addressing the ‘disconnect’ within the criminal justice system had the district heads been supervised by their respective provincial heads.

The law and justice commission of the Supreme Court exercised its leadership by notifying the provincial justice committees in 2015. The mandate of these committees includes coordination, planning and guiding reforms in the justice sector. The role of the provincial governments, particularly the political executive and the high courts, is decisive in ensuring effective oversight and reforms in the system at the provincial level. It would, therefore, have been better had the provincial governments taken ownership and instituted provincial criminal justice coordination committees (PCJCCs) by amending their respective police laws.

Punjab and KP need to amend Police Order 2002 and the KP Police Order 2016 respectively to provide for PCJCCs. Sindh and Balochistan also need to institute similar arrangements ideally by reactivating and amending Police Order 2002.

These provincial committees can deliberate legislative reforms, support capacity-building, effectively demand more funds from the government and develop feedback mechanisms, in addition to supervising the district criminal justice coordination committees. The PCJCC may include the chief justice of the high court as chairperson and the law minister, chief secretary, IGP, home secretary, the advocate general, prosecutor general, IG prisons, the vice chairman of the Provincial Bar Council and a CJS expert as members.

There is an urgent need to move beyond the posture of self-righteousness to legal, political and moral responsibility and role realisation.

The strain and disconnect can only be reduced through the exercise of leadership by the leaders of the judiciary, lawyers, police and prosecution, in addition to the political executive. The judiciary, being constitutionally the most independent institution in the country, is in an ideal position to bring all other actors of the criminal justice system together and even nudge the political executive towards serious reforms in the justice system.

In the words of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize of 2007, Al Gore, “The next generation will ask us one of two questions … ‘What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?’”

Or they can ask: ‘How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis…?

It is time to act for a safe future for our coming generations.

The writer is a former police officer.

Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2016