Ten suspected criminals killed in Karachi police ‘encounters’ in two days should trouble anyone concerned about public safety and the rule of law.

Seven died in separate incidents on Thursday and another three on Friday. In each case, police reported armed resistance, exchanges of fire, and the recovery of weapons.These accounts may be accurate, but cannot be accepted without scrutiny. Officers confronting armed criminals have every right to defend themselves and others.

Karachi’s residents, long exposed to street crime and violent robberies, deserve protection. Yet the frequency of these so-called encounters raises questions about how operations are conducted and whether suspects are given an opportunity to surrender.

Whether the police actions were legitimate or unlawful can only be established through credible investigations. There must be forensic examination of weapons, independent verification of police accounts, and proper documentation of injuries and evidence.

Such scrutiny should be routine whenever police gunfire causes death, regardless of the victim’s alleged criminal history. Otherwise, the public must rely entirely on the version offered by those who pulled the trigger. The concern extends beyond Karachi.

In Punjab, where the Crime Control Department faces allegations of staged encounters, the political response has exposed a dangerous willingness to equate police killings with justice. After a suspect in the killing of a teenage worker in Multan died in an alleged encounter, PML-N lawmaker Hina Parvez Butt celebrated it as “justice served immediately”. She deleted the post but defended her remarks as public sentiment.

Anger over a child’s murder is understandable. But an elected representative ought to know that public outrage cannot substitute for a trial, and that a police killing is not a judicial verdict. Punjab Information Minister Azma Bokhari criticised the comments, though the issue is larger than one politician’s embarrassment.

Governments must make clear that police performance will be judged by crimes prevented, offenders lawfully arrested, and cases successfully prosecuted, not bodies counted. Independent inquiries into disputed encounters should publish findings and establish responsibility if unlawful force is proved. Police officers need training, equipment and supervision that make arrest a realistic option where possible. A force that can shoot but cannot build a case offers little lasting security. The police are duty-bound to protect lives. They do not have a licence to kill.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2026

• Spox rejects reports about core committee being ‘sidelined’
• ‘Strengthening’ of parliamentary body suggested, but not decided, says Panjutha

ISLAMABAD: Amid a deluge of reports suggesting a change in the party’s decision-making structure, the PTI on Sunday rejected the notion that its core committee had been ‘sidelined’, or its powers re-designated to another body.

Sheikh Waqas Akram, the party’s central information secretary, said the core committee, the political com­mittee and the parliamentary party were separate forums, each with their own, distinct responsibilities.

Organisational and political decisions fell within the remit of the core and political committees, while the parliamentary party dealt with legislative and parliamentary issues.

He said the parliamentary party’s recommendations were given due consideration and could be referred to the relevant committees, adding that final authority over all decisions rested with PTI founder Imran Khan, who had delegated powers to the committees.

PTI leader Naeem Haider Panjutha told Dawn that during a meeting, Bar­rister Ali Zafar had suggested stren­gthening the parliamentary committee, but it was just a recommendation and no such decision was made.

“Imran Khan had entrusted the political committee with the authority to make decisions, while directing that the core committee should also be… taken into confidence before decisions were finalised. The core committee had a large membership, which made decision-making difficult. That was one of the reasons for forming the political committee — to facilitate decisions and reduce the chances of discussions being leaked,” he said.

He said that there was also a proposal to include heads of the party’s organisational bodies in the political committee.

“Subsequently, the mandate for the movement and negotiations was given to Mahmood Khan Achakzai and Raja Nasir Abbas, while Sohail Afridi was entrusted with the authority to lead the street movement. How can any change be made without Imran Khan’s approval?” he questioned.

Furthermore, the PTI also rejected a statement attributed to PTI interim chief Barrister Gohar Ali Khan suggesting that the KP chief minister could have avoided detention by staying in Mardan but he travelled to Peshawar as part of a “pre-planned master plan”.

Imran, Bushra’s ‘ordeal’

Meanwhile, in a separate statement, the party condemned the prolonged detention of its founder and his wife, the denial of their fundamental and constitutional rights, and the use of state machinery to intimidate political opponents.

The party warned that continued disregard for constitutional safeguards, due process and the sanctity of private homes was setting an alarming precedent that could threaten rights and freedoms of all citizens.

In a statement, Mr Akram claimed that Imran Khan had spent 1,177 days in detention at Adiala Jail, including 356 days in solitary confinement, while Bushra Bibi had remained behind bars for more than 911 days.

He said that the prolonged detention of both, restrictions on their meetings with family members, lawyers and party leaders, and growing concerns about Mr Khan’s health and medical care required immediate attention.

He demanded that Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi be granted all their legal, fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed rights, including regular meetings with family members, lawyers and the party leadership.

He called for appropriate medical care under the supervision of Imran Khan’s personal physician and a comprehensive examination by qualified medical specialists.

He also condemned the continued detention of Imran Khan’s sisters, despite the completion of their reported 30-day detention under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law.

He demanded their immediate release, along with that of detained PTI leaders, elected representatives and party workers, adding that preventive detention must not become an instrument for punishing political dissent or silencing opposition voices.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2026

• Proposed legislation aims to merge Public-Private Partnership Authority and Privatisation Commission
• Seeks to provide immunity to incumbent, former chairmen, secretaries and other officials

ISLAMABAD: The government has introduced a bill in the National Assembly, for the establishment of a Privatisation and Public-Private Part­nership Commission (PPPPC), by merging the existing Public-Private Partnership Authority (P3A) and Privatisation Commission, to prevent duplication of institutional functions and processes.

The proposed law that seeks amendments to both legal instruments — the Privatisation Commission Ordinance 2000 and Public Private Partnership Authority Act 2017 — also provides legal and investigation immunity to the current and all former chairmen, secretaries, board members, officials and consultants from any act of omission or commission in good faith and in personal capacity and commits public funds to contest any such cases.

The all-powerful commission will be led by the incumbent chairman Muhammad Ali and will comprise a majority of members from the private sector, including two women directors. It will collectively administer four public funds — privatisation fund, public contributory fund, viability gap fund and PPP project development funds — created through allocation in the federal budget, receipts from international lenders, income from investments or any other source.

The government claims that the PC Ordinance dealt with privatisation of SOEs under the government policy while P3A Act governed a separate body. Both frameworks were concerned with mobilising private sector capital and expertise in relation to public assets, infrastructure and services and their administration through two separate institutions entailed duplication of institutional functions and processes.

Therefore, the government’s pol­icy decision was needed for establishing a single institutional framework and mechanism for carrying out privatisation and public private partnership transactions in an efficient manner. For this, it seeks to reconstitute the Privatisation Commission as the Privatisation and Public-Private Partnership Commission, to repeal the Public Private Partnership Authority Act 2017 and dissolve the P3A.

The bill provides for the reconstitution of the board with a majority of independent members, including members with public private partnership experience and at least two women, fixed terms of office and clear grounds for disqualification and removal. The bill also empowers the proposed reconstituted commission to conduct functions of advising on, appraising, structuring, facilitating and monitoring public private partnership projects and the establishment of the viability gap fund, the PPP project development facility, and the public contribution fund.

The draft claims that it provides a comprehensive legal framework for public private partnerships, including the contractual framework for PPP agreements, a federal PPP pipeline, the approval process, the risk management unit and PPP transaction execution committees. It also empowers the commission to set up PPP nodes within government agencies, settlement of disputes and an alternative process for below-threshold projects.

The proposed law enables the commission to utilise public contribution fund to meet any government obligations with respect to PPP projects, including land acquisition, site handover, right of way and any such other enabling actions as may be required in connection with the project. All these funds would be non-lapsable.

The PPP agreement between the public and private parties shall be a public document and any interested person shall be entitled to obtain its copy subject to applicable laws, and the government or the commission or the government agency shall not be held liable for any claim of the private party for a risk which is not specified in the PPP agreement. All existing contracts signed by P3A would stand transferred to the new commission without any disadvantage to the private parties.

The proposed law empowers the commission to require in writing from any government agency to submit a complete list of its existing, proposed and planned projects, including projects under consideration or development, whether or not identified as PPP projects within fifteen days. The agencies shall be obligated to comply with such a requirement with full accuracy and completeness. Where a government agency fails to comply with any such requirement, the PC chairman may refer the matter to the ministry or division concerned for compliance.

There will be a committee to review potential PPP projects proposed for inclusion in the federal PPP pipeline and shall provide its recommendations, which shall be placed before the board for consideration and decision.

All officers, consultants, advisers, auditors, employees and other staff of the P3A shall upon the dissolution of the P3A be retained by the commission for a period of six months or until the expiration of their respective contracts, whichever is earlier, on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to them immediately before the dissolution.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2026