What was the fate of past inquiry commissions, reports?

ISLAMABAD: The formation of the Justice (r) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani-led Inquiry Commission has once again raised questions over how many inquiry commissions have been formed in the past and what happened to their reports.Were the recommendations of such past commissions implemented or not? What happened to those who were held responsible? How many reports of past judicial commissions were made public? How many judicial commission reports were challenged in the courts? These questions arise whenever a new judicial/inquiry commission is constituted by the government.

From the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission to cases like the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Kharotabad incident, the Abbottabad OBL incident, missing persons, Memogate, Mehrangate, the sugar-wheat crisis, election rigging, Broadsheet scandal, the Saleem Shehzad murder, the Gojra incident, and the Sialkot mob lynching incident -- all these led to the formation of judicial or inquiry commissions in Pakistan. However, only a few reports from these commissions were made public. The governments refused to share the reports of judicial commissions, with the excuse that the publication of these reports could cause harm to public order.

Every political party that came to power constituted several judicial commissions on different issues. During the PTI regime, the Imran Khan-led government formed many judicial/inquiry commissions. The PTI government formed commissions to investigate the sugar/wheat crisis, hike in medicine prices, loan write-offs, Broadsheet scandal, Sahiwal incident etc.

Similarly, PML-N and PPP-led governments also constituted several commissions. The News senior correspondent Umar Cheema filed an information request under the Right to Information Law, asking the Punjab government for details about the 14 commissions constituted from 2008 to 2017. Cheema’s story published in January 2017 reveals that an analysis of the information provided by the Punjab government about the commissions constituted from 2008 onward reflects the non-seriousness of the people in power regarding the implementation of recommendations.

According to Umar Cheema’s report, the provincial government initially declined to disclose the details, saying 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. The Home Department of Punjab refused to share the reports of as many as eight commissions. The reasons cited in defence of the non-disclosure itself defeat the purpose of forming such commissions.

The provincial government’s response why the commissions’ reports are not made public was: “…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.”

The News report adds” “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 Muharram 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”.