Situations had existed in the past where the inspector-general of police, despite being senior in grade, had to work under the home secretary’s command. The police order liberated the PPO from this control, but the amendments in the police order diluted the effectiveness of the provisions aimed at providing operational, administrative and financial autonomy to the police department.

The amendment that says that the chief minister will convey his policy guidance to the PPO through the chief secretary and the home department and the PPO will appoint a district police officer with the approval of the CM, are aimed at ensuring direct interference of the political head of the province in the routine functioning of the police department, which would undermine the PPO’s authority and politicize the department, observed a senior police officer seeking anonymity.

“Ex-officio secretary means PPO, who shall exercise administrative and financial powers of the secretary to the provincial government with total autonomy in operational, administrative and financial matters subject to the policy oversight and guidance given by the CM through the chief secretary and the provincial home department,” says an amendment made in 2004.

Citing another instance that would benefit the politicians, the sources cited an amendment that says: “Under exceptional circumstances due to exigencies of service or on grounds of misconduct and inefficiency which warrants major penalty under the relevant rules, the capital city police officer and district police officer may be transferred with the approval of the government before the completion of a three-year term.”

Originally, the public safety commission was supposed to deal with the issue of premature transfer of the officer, the source said. According to the original spirit of the Police Order 2002, the posting of a district police officer (DPO) was supposed to be made in consultation with the provincial government. Following the amendment, the word “consultation” has been replaced with “approval,” making intervention of the political government direct.

Similarly, the police complaint authority was abolished through an amendment and was supposedly merged into the public safety commission, sources said.

Likewise, the composition of the public safety commission, which was supposed to be set up at the federal, provincial and district levels, was originally supposed to have an equal representation that is 50 per cent from the government and 50 per cent from the opposition benches. However, following amendments the composition of the public safety commission was drastically tilted in favour of the government, reducing the representation of independent and opposition members.

The state of affairs can be seen from the fact that the Sindh public safety commission was set up in May 2006. And so far only one meeting of this commission has been held.

Similarly, as per another amendment meant to make the police system subservient to political influence, a certain section of the annual confidential report of the CCPO and DPO is supposed to be written by the district nazim.

In other words, an attempt has been made through the amendment to make two senior officers subservient to the district nazim.

A number of vested interests have always been against police reforms in the country, as they fear that a politically neutral autonomous police would no longer act according to their wishes.

More than 25 commissions/committees had been constituted for police reforms in the past.

The first attempt to reform the police was made just after independence as a bill was passed in the Sindh Assembly to organize police in the then capital city of Karachi on modern lines. A draft of the proposal was sent to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who was also governor-general then, for approval. However, a powerful vested-interest group managed to delay the approval till the death of the governor-general. The bill was then never discussed.

In 1951, a committee headed by Sir Oliver Gilbert Grace, the then inspector-general of police of the North West Frontier Province, recommended that the police set-up for the city of Karachi should be fundamentally changed. However, no headway could be made because of strong opposition of the bureaucratic and political elite.

In 1985, a police committee strongly recommended that the existing outdated system be fundamentally restructured. A ministerial committee also approved the recommendation.

Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in her speech before the Police Service of Pakistan Association on April 12, 1989 had announced that the old police system would be replaced on an experimental basis in selected cities of Pakistan. However, that pledge never materialized.

In 1995, a UN mission led by Vincent M. Del Buono, the UN’s inter-regional adviser for crime prevention and criminal justice, visited Pakistan and made a number of recommendations.

The UN mission was followed by a visit in 1996 by a Japanese team, which observed that it was crucial that police reforms in Pakistan should be focused on building a relationship of trust between the people and the police and that the police in Pakistan should adopt a public service concept.

In March 1998, the Good Governance Group of 2010, taking support from the Japanese report, recommended that the police be depoliticized and their recruitment, postings, transfers, training and career development be ensured on merit.

In 1999, the government decided to set up a focal group on police reforms and tasked it to suggest fundamental restructuring of the police. The NRB’s think-tank on police reforms lost no time in concluding that the police needed to be transformed from its colonial mould.

Ironically, eight years on, the same NRB is set to make a decision on the fate of the same police order by deciding whether to revert to the old system or continue with the present one.