Rizwan Khan
The recent establishment of the Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority (PERA Force), popularly called the municipal police, marks a major administrative experiment by the Punjab government. Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif has described it as a landmark reform designed to improve district-level governance and ensure better implementation of municipal and local laws. The stated goal was simple: to empower the district administration to control encroachments, maintain urban order, and resolve civic issues through a structured, locally accountable mechanism.
However, the recent move by segments of the federal bureaucracy to revive the executive magistracy system has triggered a serious administrative and constitutional debate. The idea of reinstating executive magistrates—officials with combined judicial and executive powers—stands in direct contradiction to the logic behind PERA Force. If the new municipal force and district administration already handle enforcement, regulation, and urban management, why reintroduce a colonial-era system that blurs the line between governance and adjudication?
The contradictions are both institutional and financial. Billions of rupees in public funds have already been invested in establishing PERA Force—recruiting personnel, acquiring equipment, and developing administrative infrastructure. If executive magistracy returns, what will become of this new institution? Would the government abandon an ongoing reform to restore an obsolete model? More importantly, would it not create a parallel system that overlaps functions, wastes resources, and deepens bureaucratic confusion?
Follow Republic Policy on YouTube
From a financial perspective, reinstating executive magistracy would again require massive administrative expenditure—new offices, vehicles, support staff, and court facilities. The bureaucratic footprint would expand, but public service delivery would not necessarily improve. Instead of focusing on better coordination within the existing system, the government would be pouring scarce resources into a redundant model that Pakistan’s own constitutional evolution has already discarded.
More fundamentally, the revival of executive magistracy violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Under the 18th Amendment, provincial governments were granted administrative autonomy, and the distinction between judicial and executive functions was firmly established. Restoring executive magistrates means returning judicial powers to the executive arm of government—a direct assault on judicial independence and due process. This is not merely a technical adjustment; it represents a reversal of democratic progress.
The existence of PERA Force and the attempt to reintroduce executive magistracy reveal a deeper structural tension between reform and control. PERA was conceived as a modern, professional, and locally accountable enforcement mechanism. In contrast, the executive magistracy system, inherited from colonial governance, centralizes authority in a few hands and reduces local governments to subservient administrative units. If both systems operate simultaneously, confusion and duplication are inevitable. Officers will overlap in jurisdiction, citizens will face procedural delays, and accountability will vanish in institutional ambiguity.
The real issue is not whether PERA or executive magistracy is more efficient, but whether Pakistan wants to move toward decentralized, democratic governance or revert to bureaucratic absolutism. Reform in governance must always aim to strengthen existing systems, not create new ones that undermine them. The Punjab government must recognize that reforms are sustainable only when they are coherent, constitutionally sound, and financially justified. Building one institution while reviving another that contradicts it is neither reform nor innovation—it is administrative chaos.
Follow Republic Policy on Facebook
It is also critical for policymakers in Lahore to remember that the spirit of the 18th Amendment rests on the devolution of power. Provinces were granted the right to design their own administrative frameworks. Reintroducing federal-style magistracy undermines that autonomy, revives centralization, and dilutes local empowerment. A truly reformist provincial government should resist such regressive pressures and focus instead on professionalizing institutions like PERA through capacity building, legal clarity, and performance-based accountability.
If the Punjab government genuinely wishes to improve law enforcement and local administration, the answer lies not in restoring outdated colonial frameworks but in modernizing existing ones. PERA Force should be developed into a robust district-level enforcement body under clear legal oversight, linked with municipal and local councils. The system should empower citizens, not bureaucrats.
The return of executive magistracy, under the guise of administrative reform, is therefore neither constitutionally valid nor economically sustainable. It represents an attempt by sections of the federal bureaucracy to reclaim lost power and weaken provincial autonomy. Such an effort must be viewed critically, not as a policy debate, but as a question of constitutional fidelity.
Follow Republic Policy on TikTok
Punjab’s political leadership, particularly Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz and her cabinet, must take a clear stand. Strengthening governance does not mean multiplying institutions; it means making existing ones effective, transparent, and accountable. Every rupee spent from public funds carries the weight of trust. Using those resources to sustain competing bureaucratic structures is not reform — it is regression.
The restoration of executive magistracy in the presence of PERA Force is, therefore, indefensible on legal, administrative, and moral grounds. It revives the bureaucratic domination that Pakistan has spent decades trying to overcome. True reform requires courage — the courage to say no to centralization and yes to empowered, efficient, and people-centered local governance.
