Editorial
For a long time, police stations in Pakistan have been using undercover informants to keep an eye on suspects. However, there have been many instances where reports from these unidentified collaborators have been misused. These reports have been used to fabricate evidence and target vulnerable people in society with serious crimes. This can be done for two reasons: either to show results and get promoted, or to extort money from the accused.
One such example is a case filed at the Counter Terrorism Department of a Karachi police station. The prosecution claimed that an officer on patrol received a call from an informant. The informant reported seeing a young man, Zain Shahid, with an accomplice (who escaped) holding a logbook labeled “Daesh Pakistan Fund Raising.” This logbook supposedly indicated plans for terrorist activities across Pakistan.
Following an “investigation,” a report with fabricated evidence was submitted to a trial court. As a consequence, Zain Shahid was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and this sentence was upheld by the Sindh High Court.
However, the entire case was based on a fake police report. Zain Shahid appealed to the Supreme Court, and a three-judge panel led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail finally delivered a verdict. The Supreme Court overturned the Sindh High Court’s decision and ordered Zain Shahid’s immediate release. The court noted that the case against him was initiated solely on the basis of an informant’s report, which was never documented. They also raised doubts about the way Shahid was implicated in the case.
Justice Mandokhail’s verdict reflected a wider concern about the use of unverifiable information from anonymous sources. The judge observed a troubling trend where police arrest or harass innocent people based on flimsy suspicions or accusations of terrorism, without any concrete evidence. This is why many ordinary citizens fear the police instead of seeing them as a source of help.
The Supreme Court’s ruling aims to establish a safeguard against wrongful arrests and convictions based on unverified information from anonymous sources. The verdict emphasizes the importance of law enforcement agencies recording information obtained from informants for the sake of fair trials. This is a crucial aspect that has been neglected in past attempts at police reform.
The implementation of the 2002 Police Order, which replaced the outdated Police Act of 1861, was intended to address ethical and procedural shortcomings in the police system. However, these reforms haven’t been successful due to existing power dynamics. The main obstacle seems to be the tendency of those in power to misuse the police to maintain their influence. The police, in turn, prioritize pleasing their superiors rather than serving the public they are sworn to protect.
Hopefully, this recent verdict by the Supreme Court will serve as a step towards preventing wrongful arrests and convictions based on fabricated evidence.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
