Inquiry needed into what happened to inquiry commissions

ISLAMABAD: Although demanding the constitution of a judicial commission in the event of a tragic incident has become a fashion, official responses received through the Right to Information (RTI) law indicate they have only been used for distracting attention from the issue under question. 

The recommendations of commissions are either not implemented or partially done. Those held responsible go unaccounted. Such reports are not made public. In cases where the government can’t stop the publication of such reports under judicial pressure, their findings are challenged before the court so as to buy more time for erasing the issue from public memory.  

While the findings of Quetta Inquiry Commission report is a hot topic of debate these days after its release by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Abbottabad Commission report is still awaited.  An analysis of the information provided by the Punjab government about the 14 commissions constituted from 2008 onward reflects on the non-seriousness of the people in power on the issue of implementation of recommendations.   

The provincial government initially declined to disclose the details describing that publicizing the commission reports “is likely to cause harm to the public order.” When pressed by the Punjab Information Commission after The News filed a complaint before this appellant body, the provincial government came up with a novel answer on the issue of the implementation of recommendations.  Home Department of Punjab refused to share the reports of as many as eight commissions. The reasons cited in defense of the non-disclosure itself defeat the purpose of forming such commissions.  

Quoting the official reply may offer an instructive reading: “…Therefore, undersigned as public information officer is of the opinion that, report of the tribunal is not made a public document, as yet as according to case law, such reports, are not judgments of courts, since, while tribunals have limited powers of civil courts, they are not entirely to be regarded as civil courts and their reports are mere recommendations and not binding on the government.” 

However, responding to another question contained in the same RTI application about the status of implementation of the recommendations, the department said that all the stakeholders were “instructed for compliance in view of the report.”   

What they comply is evident from the steps taken by the government in light of the recommendations of the commission whose report was made public. This was the commission formed to investigate Gojra incident occurred in 2009. As many as eight Christians were burnt alive, over fifty houses and a church were set ablaze in this incident.  

While the home department has replied to The News that “All stakeholders were instructed for compliance in view of the report” of Gojra inquiry commission, the advocate general Punjab had told the Supreme Court a different story in 2013. The recommendations couldn’t be followed due to the differences between the home department and the Punjab police, he had said then when summoned by the court in connection with the recurrence of yet another such incident in Joseph Colony, Lahore.   

The Gojra commission had also recommended amendments in some controversial sections in the PPC, CrPC, the Police Order as well as anti-blasphemy laws to avert such tension in future. That also fell on the deaf ears of authorities.  

The Supreme Court was then also told that a compromise had been reached between the accused and the victims of the Gojra incident, a typical coercive approach employed by the powerful accused against the weak victims.  Torture of a nine-year maid at the house of a judge in Islamabad and the compromise that followed is the latest reflections on the legal loopholes used by the influential accused. 

Home department’s reply was also intriguing with regard to the fate of three commissions including the one set up in 2013 after sectarian clashes during Moharram in Raja Bazaar, Rawalpindi.  A tribunal of inquiry was constituted under the leadership of a high court judge. Three years have passed and “no report of the commission has been received” as claimed by the Home Department. 

Fate of the two other commissions set up after the loadshedding protest in Kamalia in 2012 and the murder of a condemned Indian prisoner in 2013 also hangs in balance. Both inquiries were assigned to the same high court judge.