Law Enforcement Agencies – Accountability by Courts

Today’s headlines were that number of FIRs (First Information Reports) filed against Imran Khan, the ex-prime minister of Pakistan, has reached 76.  At this pace and with the same in power, we should not be surprised if the number crosses a 100 pretty soon. 

Then we all hear on news and read in newspapers that our judicial system is under stress.  It has more cases it can handle which impacts the quality and quantity of judgements.  Further there are instances when multiple cases get registered against single individual without any substance.

I am sure Law Ministry and Supreme Judicial Council, in all their wisdom and experience, are working tirelessly to address the above but in my humble opinion there is at least one low hanging fruit that we are not picking which is reducing the number of “unnecessary” cases by making the law enforcement agencies accountable for what they do.

It appears as the Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have made a mockery of Pakistan’s judicial system by registering multiple cases against same individual for the same offense and on top of it the cases are mostly baseless, have no substance and are filed in multiple far-flung areas to make it difficult for the accused to travel around and clear their name.

Such cases are mostly politically motivated and are:

• Baseless
• Wrong
• filed in far flung areas.
• multiple cases are filed for the same offense, and
• even include wrong and inapplicable legal clauses

As a result of above a single person with one offense can have:

• multiple cases
• in multiple jurisdictions
• would require support from multiple LEA’s teams.
• would engage multiple courts.
• would waste multiple courts’ time, and
• would waste even law enforcement agencies time and resources unnecessarily.

Majority of such cases get squashed by the courts during first or first couple of hearings, and rightly so.

To my knowledge, the Law Enforcement Agencies, such as Police, Federal Investigation Authority have qualified individuals who are trained to, and are expected to, know these legal matters.  They are expected to know the impact of such useless cases, however, for reasons better known to them decide to act otherwise.  Similarly, it is the courts’ registrar’s office job to pre-screen the cases and ensure that only valid and correct cases are accepted for further hearing to ensure saving court’s valuable time, but they don’t do so.

Well, if a government servant(s) knowingly chooses to not perform their duty correctly, the law should ensure they are reprimanded accordingly, as happens in all other jobs.  The key point here is that unless the LEAs are also held accountable for how they are misusing and what are they doing to the system, things will continue.

To avoid all above the writer suggests some simple actions by the courts and their administrative staff.

At the time of filing an FIR and/or a case with the court the LEA’s signing authority (with name and designation) should confirm in writing that:

• The offense has occurred within their area of jurisdiction
• Person(s) accused has his/her primary place of residence within their area of jurisdiction.
• No other case for the same offense by the same accused has been registered in any jurisdictions (note:  Only a provincial head can authorize exception to this requirement in writing).
• The clauses applied against the accused have been confirmed with legal SME (Subject Matter Expert) with name and designation

If any of above is not applicable or has not happened:

• The cases should NOT be accepted for onward proceeding.
• Cases should immediately be squashed with full benefits to the accused.

If a case eventually reaches court and any of the above is later found to be wrongly used or to be incorrect, following should be done by the court:

• Cases should immediately be squashed with full benefits to the accused.
• The individuals who signed the case submission and/or the individuals who confirmed wrong application of the legal clauses to be held accountable as under:
  • Negative remarks to be added to their ACR (Annual Confidential Report)
  • They should be disqualified for any promotion/rewards for next 3 years.
  • They are required to complete mandatory professional training to address knowledge gaps.
  • They should be recommended for demotion if same mistake happens the third time.
  • They should be recommended for dismissal is same mistake happens the fifth time AND should be awarded the same sentence as for accused if case was proven.

The writer feels that as a result of above following good results are expected:

1. Number of useless and unnecessary cases with courts will be reduced.
2. Courts time and effort, for hearing and/or even processing multiple wrong cases will be saved.
3. Courts can focus on more important and genuine cases.
4. Quality and quantity of cases handled and decided by courts will increase.
5. Courts’ respect and value for common people will increase.
6. LEA personnel will consider using their professional training more seriously.
7. LEAs will think twice before following illegal and wrong orders by influential individuals.
8. LEA personnel will get trained better.
9. LEAs will increase their respect and will get better support from common people.
10. LEAs time and effort for processing and supporting multiple wrong cases will be saved.

We must not forget that changes need actions, otherwise laws of inertia apply.

Note:  If you like what you just read you can help more by:

1. Subscribing – this way you will be notified anytime a new post gets made
2. Sharing posts – this way you will spread the good words to more people
3. Sharing ideas – this way you can give us your ideas/solutions for new blog
4. Writing blog – this way you can actually contribute to this website and participate in the good work

Feel free to reach out to us for any questions, suggestions and/or areas for improvements.

Babar Saeed

bsaeed@yahoo.com

March 07, 2023