Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns about the systemic failure of law enforcement in tackling drug trafficking beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that the prosecutions overwhelm only the “carriers” of the narcotics – mostly from underprivileged backgrounds – while great perpetrators remain untouched.
The observations came in a 17-page written sentence written by Justice At Har MINALLAH, where the court acquitted two people who had previously been sentenced to life prison in a drug case.
The order was handed down by a bench with three members led by Justice Minallah and includes justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan.
“There are several law enforcement agencies assigned to the powers to understand and prosecute those involved in the crimes of drugs, including a special agency, the anti-narcotic strength created under the 1997 law,” notes the judgment.
The judgment questions the effectiveness of these institutions, especially when seen against the scale and the pervasive of the drug thumping.
“The population of Pakistan has to bear the financial burden to maintain these law enforcement authorities entrusted to the heavy task of eradicating the threat of drugs from society. Have they achieved their designated goals? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’,” it says.
The court also complained the growing spread of drugs across the country and said, “The evil of drugs has spread throughout the country, and it cannot be disputed that it has reached the educational institutions where they are freely available.”
The bench pointed out that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecutions often do not result in conviction, which raises further doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigating processes.
“The law enforcement authorities have not gone beyond arresting carriers and then in many cases failing to prove the blame, even to their extent. If society is to be released from the evil of drugs, each law enforcement agency must perform effectively and in the most professional way.”
“They must be held responsible for their omissions and lapses committed during the investigations, or while prosecuting a case. The future generations cannot be exposed to the threat of drugs that are merely because the more law enforcement authorities who are entrusted with the troublesome duty to liberate society from this evil fails to perform effectively or seen as closely.
“The goat stops with the federal and provincial governments, as the case may be because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement.
“This case also shows that the trial had failed to exercise its powers assigned under the law.
“We therefore expect the government in Sindh, which, in accordance with section 5 (1) of the 2009 law, will carry out general superintendent in the prosecution service and be responsible for ensuring that they have been adopted by the objectives of the law of 2009, will take effective steps, so that cases involving crimes involving narcotic the investigations and the lawsuits.
“Prosecutor Sindh is expected to investigate this case and take appropriate actions so that the omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The prosecution is further recommended to consider issuing guidelines in the pursuit of its functions under section 9-a (1) of the 2009 law of the prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and effective law.
The Supreme Court is also expected to consider establishing a policy for regular training of legal officers regarding the implementation of criminal litigation. The order also said that this case has been stemed from the province of Sindh, where the provincial assembly in Sindh has promised and adopted Sindh Criminal Conciliation Service (Constitution Functions and Powers) Act 2009.
“The penalty pursuit of SINDH has been established under this legislation. The law of 2009 determines the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service on behalf of the government.
“The administration of this service west of the government. Section 9 (1) explicitly provides that the prosecutors are responsible for conducting prosecutions on behalf of the government. The prosecution is authorized under section 9-a (1) to issue general guidelines for prosecutors or officers responsible for investigations for effective and effective prosecution.
