The accused was killed [or injured] in a shoot-out with his accomplices who, after the incident, fled the scene, with teams dispatched to apprehend them.’ Without fail, we come across this police statement after almost every alleged shoot-out.

While circumstances may change and the area may differ, the official story remains the same. It is consistent in the sense that neither the wording nor the structure of the sentence is altered.

This template was also used in the recent killing of Dr Shahnawaz Kambhar, a blasphemy accused, with the police saying he was “killed by his own accomplices” during a shoot-out in Mirpurkhas, Sindh. However, once the incident came under media scrutiny, the police story was torn apart within a matter of hours. As word of the ‘staged encounter’ spread and condemnations began to pour in, the Sindh government swung into action.

What followed is already in the public domain, but one fact worth mentioning is that the inquiry, ordered by the Sindh home minister, revealed it was a staged encounter.

WHAT IS A STAGED ENCOUNTER?

Before going into the reasons and the modus operandi employed by the police to carry out such extrajudicial killings, we need to develop an understanding of what makes a police encounter a staged encounter.

Police in Pakistan follow a set template when it comes to staging fake ‘encounters’, as shown in the recent case of blasphemy accused Dr Shahnawaz Kumbhar. A serving policeman tries to explain what drives this practice, why ‘encounter specialists’ get away with what they do and how to change this pernicious culture…

A staged encounter is one in which law enforcement agencies, particularly police, orchestrate a scenario that appears to be a legitimate encounter or shoot-out, but is, in fact, pre-planned and undertaken to kill individuals without due process. In this premeditated act, an illusion of self-defence is set up to get through the ensuing legal challenges, such as invoking the police’s right-to-self-defence, as enshrined in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

The modus operandi employed by the police to carry out extrajudicial killings is usually the same everywhere. The victim is first arrested and kept in illegal detention for weeks. Then, in the middle of the night, he is transported to a deserted place — often deserted graveyards, agricultural fields or riverine areas — where a volley of bullets is discharged at him.

An official statement typically follows, containing the usual platitudes, claiming that ‘A’ was being taken for ‘recovery’ of weapons or other material when, en route, his accomplices attacked the police to secure his release; the police “retaliated”, but ‘A’ was “caught in the crossfire”, resulting in his death or injury, while the attackers fled under the “cover of darkness.”

Now, take any case of extrajudicial killing that ever took place in any province, region or district. You will find this same pattern — without even a single alteration of a word, full stop or comma. Troublingly, it seems to matter not one bit that the overuse of the current template has rendered it doubtful.

‘FULL FRY’ AND ‘HALF FRY’

The culture of staged encounters permeates the police forces across Pakistan. In fact, it is the shared belief and value amongst all ranks. There are a multitude of reasons for it being a ‘favourite sport’ of law-enforcers.

The phrase ‘favourite sport’ may sound insensitive to some, but this is how extrajudicial killings are viewed by members of the police force. Such is the height of insensitivity that the term “full fry” is used to refer to such killings internally, while “half fry” describes the act of shooting the victim in the kneecap, in one or both legs, so as to leave them crippled for the rest of their life.

Sometimes it can go wrong, too, as it did recently in Punjab. The police caught an alleged bandit and decided to ‘half fry’ him, but the task reportedly fell to a novice, who failed to hit the bullet at the intended part of the victim’s body. Instead, the bullet allegedly pierced through the lower belly, leaving the victim critically wounded, with blood flowing from the wound. Reportedly, he was not shifted to a hospital for quite some time and remained groaning and contorting until he breathed his last.

Such phoney encounters also allow the police to gloss over their own shortcomings. Poor investigations, coupled with equally poor prosecutions, result in a dismal conviction rate. But instead of focusing on their own investigative practices and procedures, the prevalent perception among police officers is that the judicial system is the reason for their failure to get a conviction.

This perception provides them with the justification to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner, and to instantly dispense ‘justice’ via ‘full fry’ or ‘half fry.’

THE DETERRENT THAT ISN’T

There is a strong belief among the members of the police force that only violence can be an effective response to the violence. Staged encounters are one of the tools the police use to spread ‘official violence’ in an attempt to deter criminals and control the crime rate. Thus, we see the number of police shoot-outs remain consistently high.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), a staggering 3,296 police encounters occurred in Sindh alone in 2023 and a total of 618 people were mowed down in the country in police encounters in one year.

There were 2,544 police shootouts in Sindh during 2022, while this number rose to 3,296 the following year, indicating an uptick of 30 percent. It underscores the police’s ever-increasing proclivity towards violence. Ironically, as the HRCP report notes, despite the increase in encounters, the crime rate in Sindh also witnessed a rise in 2023, with street crime going up by 11 percent.

This debunks the myth about the efficacy of such killings in arresting the crime rate.

‘ENCOUNTER SPECIALISTS’

Cutting down people in a hail of bullets is considered a badge of honour for the perpetrators. Police officers, among themselves and in off-the-record conversations, often proudly recount such encounters and boast about the number of people they have gunned down.

The phrase ‘encounter specialist’ is used to refer to the men who have expertise in killing people in staged encounters. These so-called ‘encounter specialists’ are given lucrative postings and are granted carte blanche to kill people. Rao Anwar, a former senior superintendent of police, according to police records, was involved in ‘encounters’ that claimed the lives of 444 people.

I once had the opportunity to sit down with one such ‘encounter specialist.’ The man, twirling his moustache and wearing a smile on his face, admitted in no uncertain terms that he had sent at least 20 people to the hereafter in fake encounters. Upon my question about how he managed to get away with it each time, he smugly replied: “Killing people in fake encounters is an art, but covering up those killings by tampering records takes even more skill.”

Despite this grim reality, one struggles to find a single precedent where perpetrators of such staged encounters have been put in the dock. More often than not, such encounters hardly create any headlines. In situations where the matter does come into the limelight, cases are promptly registered and the accused are removed from their postings, but only temporarily, to placate the media.

Once the news fades from public view, not only are the accused given a free pass, thanks to the lopsided investigations in such cases conducted by their ‘uniform brothers’, but they also often get posted to more lucrative positions.

In some cases, where judicial enquiries are ordered, the police still manage to influence the outcome, either through record-tampering or by effecting a settlement with the heirs of the victims, either through coercion or inducement.

One legal avenue against this barbarity is the filing of a private complaint in a magistrate’s court, as laid down under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898. However, this process is often lengthy, costly and ineffective. Furthermore, even if the family of the victim daringly takes this route, the courts ironically seek reports in the matter from the same police force that is being put in the dock by the complainant.

Even more comical is the fact that courts tend to mechanically dispose of such complaints in light of the reports furnished by the police. Consequently, convictions in the cases of staged encounters are exceedingly rare.

The case of Rao Anwar serves as an example to show the impunity enjoyed by these ‘encounter specialists.’ He was able to walk free from the case of the cold-blooded murder of an innocent young man, Naqeebullah Mehsud, despite much uproar in the media and civil society.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONS

So can anything be done to reform the situation?

The perpetrators of extrajudicial killings often get away with their crime because investigations into such cases are carried out by their colleagues in the police. This mechanism is inherently flawed and against the principles of natural justice. There needs to be an independent investigation commission to investigate every such act of killing, whether or not it is reported by the victim’s heirs.

We can draw lessons from South Africa, which has such a mechanism in place. It established the Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID) in 2011, through an act of parliament. The public can file complaints against transgressions committed by the officers of the South African police. In case of custodial torture, death in custody and extrajudicial killings, the station commander, an officer equivalent to the rank of assistant/deputy superintendent of police in Pakistan, is required to promptly report it to the commission.

If the investigation substantiates the allegations against any member of the force, the commission recommends action to the police leadership, which is under obligation to take action in accordance with its recommendations.

Such a mechanism is desperately needed in Pakistan to hold police officials accountable for human rights violations in general, and particularly for extrajudicial killings. There needs to be a commission in each province, comprising elected members of the provincial assembly concerned as well as members of civil society. Then, in every region, the commission can set up sub-committees to take up the matter of extrajudicial killings.

The commission so established should be empowered not only to conduct inquiries in such killings, but also to recommend both criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those found culpable.

REFINING INVESTIGATIONS, CHANGING MINDSETS

It is imperative for the police to move away from the typical investigation approach, which revolves around practices from the 19th century, as poor investigation inevitably leads to acquittals. As pointed out earlier, this is then used by the police to justify the alternatives to ‘make society crime-free’, resulting in fake encounters as a ‘policy prescription’ to circumvent due process.

To address this, upskilling of investigation officers is essential. Investigation officers should not only be equipped with modern investigation methods prevalent worldwide, such as forensic science, digital forensics and behaviour analysis, but also made well-versed in the use of technology. What is crucial is the provision of access to such modern facilities at the level of the police station. It is equally important for officers to understand data analytics to optimise the resources at their disposal.

In addition to these skills, investigation officers must have a solid understanding of substantive, procedural and evidentiary law, which a wide majority within the police currently lack. As a result, they struggle to grasp what evidence is admissible under the law, what it means to maintain the sanctity of the evidence, how to produce it in court and how to testify during trial. To this end, regular workshops for investigative officers can be arranged, engaging serving and retired judicial officers, prosecutors and eminent lawyers.

To rein in this killing spree, the police need to also undergo a thorough purge. Officers with dubious human rights records, particularly the ones who boldly and shamelessly take pride in being ‘encounter specialists’, should be shunted out of the department, or at least be sidelined forthwith. Field postings must not be assigned to them until they undergo targeted training and commit to upholding the inherent sanctity of human rights.

There is also a need to uproot the perception that these so-called ‘encounter specialists’ are in any way ‘brave’ or ‘special’, not only within the ranks of the police, but also in society. This term, which unfortunately commands a sense of vigilante machismo, needs to be made synonymous with an expletive; this perceived ‘badge of honour’ must systematically be turned into a ‘badge of shame.’

A TIME TO ACT

This is an opportune moment for policymakers to act, as the cold-blooded murder of Dr Kumbhar has resulted in a rallying cry, reminiscent of the outrage that followed the killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud in Karachi and the tragic slaying of a family in front of children in Sahiwal in 2019. The public’s support for such measures will be readily attainable.

This is the time to act; as a nation, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to these violations of basic human rights. We must confront the issues that have devastated countless families. The emotional pain and psychological trauma endured by these bereaved families cannot be adequately measured or articulated.

While we cannot bring back the loved ones lost to this ‘police mania’, we have the power to save many other sons, brothers and husbands. Let’s take action for the sake of humanity.

The writer is a sub-inspector in the police and is currently serving in a specialised unit. He has a law degree from the University of Punjab. He can be reached at maharmurrawat240@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, November 3rd, 2024