THE real strength of state institutions does not lie in an office, position, or individual. It lies in the supremacy of law. Whether a person is an elected representative, a police officer, or an ordinary citizen, everyone is equal before the law. The privilege motion against Faisalabad RPO Sohail Sakhira has placed this principle at the centre of an important institutional debate. According to available information, Member of the Punjab Assembly Ghazanfar Abbas Chhina moved a privilege motion in connection with a murder case in Jhang, reportedly concerning a request for video footage and communication with the RPO. RPO Sohail Sakhira presented his position before the committee, stating that he had no intention of insulting the MPA, that the requested video was not in his possession, and that an ongoing investigation could not be changed under pressure.
The real issue is not whether one individual should be supported or opposed. The fundamental question is whether parliamentary privilege was actually breached or whether an administrative and investigative disagreement was turned into a matter of privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists to protect elected representatives in performing their parliamentary responsibilities. However, every disagreement with a government officer does not automatically constitute a breach of privilege. A delay in obtaining a record, dissatisfaction with an administrative decision, or disagreement during a meeting must be examined according to law and parliamentary rules.
At the same time, an elected representative deserves respect in a democratic system. If an MPA contacts a police officer regarding a citizen’s complaint, a murder case, or a public issue, he should receive an appropriate institutional response. But just as a police officer is not above the law, an elected representative is not above the law either. If the requested video was part of an ongoing murder investigation, the first question should be whether the RPO actually possessed it and whether he was legally authorized to provide it. Protecting investigative evidence is a responsibility of the police. It cannot simply be released because an influential person requests it.
However, if evidence establishes that an elected representative was deliberately humiliated, unlawfully obstructed, or prevented from performing parliamentary duties, the assembly has every right to take notice. The decision must be based on facts and evidence, not emotions or influence. The professional conduct and merit of RPO Sohail Sakhira also deserve consideration. A senior police officer who protects an ongoing investigation, refuses to alter investigative findings under pressure, and insists on following legal procedure is performing an important institutional responsibility. If the facts confirm that the RPO acted within the law, protected evidence, and maintained professional discipline, these qualities should be recognized.
However, professional merit cannot place any officer above accountability. The standard of law must remain the same for everyone. If the RPO violated any law, procedure, or professional rule, appropriate accountability should follow. His professional standing should be judged by evidence, conduct, and performance, not by allegations alone. An important question is whether a privilege motion can become a means of putting pressure on a police officer. The answer should clearly be no. If a murder investigation is underway, evidence, statements, video footage, and other investigative material must be preserved according to law. Political or administrative pressure must not determine the direction of an investigation.
At the same time, police investigative autonomy does not mean unlimited authority. Police officers remain accountable to the law, courts, departmental rules, and public oversight. Autonomy means investigations should be conducted on merit and according to law, rather than according to the wishes of influential individuals. If investigations can be changed under pressure today, tomorrow another influential person may seek the same advantage.
Police officers must also understand that investigative authority is not a license for disrespect. If inappropriate language was used against an elected representative, that allegation should also be investigated impartially. A senior police officer is expected to demonstrate patience, courtesy, and institutional dignity. The Privilege Committee has an important responsibility. It should examine the complete record, hear relevant persons, verify any alleged instructions of the IGP Punjab, establish whether the requested video was available, and determine whether the incident actually interfered with the MPA’s parliamentary functions.
If a genuine breach of privilege is established, action should be taken according to law and parliamentary rules. If no breach is established, the motion should not become a tool of institutional pressure. Likewise, the RPO should neither be declared guilty merely because an allegation has been made nor considered beyond accountability because he holds a senior office. The Faisalabad matter should not become a personal battle between an MPA and an RPO. It should become an opportunity to demonstrate institutional maturity. Parliament represents the people, the police enforce the law, and courts provide justice. Every institution must operate within its legal limits.
In Pakistan, the greatest victim of institutional conflict is often the ordinary citizen. The Faisalabad case must remain a test of law, not power. If every institution respects legal limits, evidence, accountability, and professional integrity, both Parliament and police will emerge stronger, and citizens will have greater confidence in justice.
—The writer is Chairman Pakistan Columnist Council.
