Who Guards Pakistan?

Memoona Kiani

Rawalpindi: The trend of privatising security services is gaining momentum worldwide, as governments increasingly depend on private military and security companies (PMSCs) to address deficiencies in law enforcement, counterterrorism, and military operations.

Proponents assert that privatisation leads to improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness; however, critics caution about its potentially destabilising impacts on governance, accountability, and human rights.

The rise of private security in Pakistan is eroding administrative authority, allowing influential individuals to circumvent the rule of law and establish their enforcement structures. Regulations governing security-consulting businesses vary around the globe, with several countries enforcing stringent laws to ensure public safety and accountability.

In 2001, the British government established the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to oversee the private security sector passed the Private Security Industry Act. Moreover, Ireland’s Private Security Authority (PSA), was established under the Private Security Services Act 2004 which monitors authorisation of licenses and regulation of private security services.

Although there is no outright ban due to constitutional and legislative measures, the right to privacy and dignity is guaranteed under Article 14 of the 1973 Constitution.

The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to limit arbitrary state interference and unlawful monitoring. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Case and other landmark decisions have upheld the idea that unauthorised monitoring is a violation of basic rights and have served as a warning against the potential invasion of civil liberties by unregulated private security operations.

Furthermore, legislation like the Investigation for Fair Trial Act (2013) and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (2016) governs surveillance practices; however, these laws fail to provide a thorough framework for the oversight of private military contractors.

The lack of targeted legislation regulating PMSCs creates a legal void, which prompts significant concerns regarding extrajudicial actions and potential human rights infringements.

Conversely, the Punjab Private Security Companies (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2002, provides legal precedent for regulating these entities but is ineffectively implemented. This leads to violations and the spread of unlicensed private militias.

The outsourcing of counter-narcotics operations to private firms and paramilitary groups in Mexico and Colombia has resulted in a significant increase in violence. The “War on Drugs” involved US-backed PMSCs providing training to local forces, which consequently contributed to corruption and extrajudicial killings, thereby obscuring the distinction between state and private violence.

In Mexico, cartels such as Los Zetas have transformed into militarised factions that engage in direct combat with state forces. This presents a scenario that Pakistan may risk replicating if private security actors function without rigorous oversight.

The Nisour Square incident in 2007, involving the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians at the hands of Blackwater contractors, highlighted the significant risks associated with unregulated private military and security companies. Although the Montreux Document (2008) seeks to impose regulations on these firms, the level of accountability continues to be insufficient.

Pakistan’s tenuous rule of law may encounter comparable impunity should private security forces function beyond established legal frameworks.

A Kremlin-affiliated mercenary group called the Wagner Group has been charged with war crimes in Africa and Ukraine. These groups leverage legal ambiguities to function as proxies for the state, thereby compromising the integrity of international law.

Among the most alarming developments in recent years in Pakistan, is the rise of private security protocols among notables. While this culture was regionally bounded to Sindh, particularly Karachi, it has now made its way into Punjab, introducing the risk of turmoil and unfettered dominance.

In Sindh, where offense statistics were historically high, Tycoons, politicians, and feudal lords grabbed power and took security into their own hands. For instance, in July 2018, Jibran Nasir a rights activist was beaten by the private security protocol of a judge in Karachi, when he refused to give way to the protocol. This illustrates how power is misused to suppress citizens’ rights by such private protocols.

Today, it is normal to see convoys of black SUVs, guards bearing arms, and vigorous security personnel dominating public roads, making the general public feel like secondary stakeholders in their cities. Recently, an incident occurred in March 2025, at Lahore’s Dharampura Beijing Underpass. Masked security guards appointed to protect a foreign delegation, shot bullets on a citizen named Imran and physically assaulted him, for not giving way to protocol.

The presence of heavily fortified guards, sometimes unlawful activities, raises concerns about public protection, governance, and the rule of law. The widespread use of illicit flashers, hooters, police insignia, and display of lights, not only breaches the public order but also fosters the culture of exemption from punishment, among elites.

Having security protocol was once a matter of necessity in conflict-ridden areas, but now it has turned into a menacing display of wealth and flashy indicator of dominance, undermining state authority and increasing the risk of brutal clashes.

In western countries, private security protocols are subject to strict laws, guaranteeing accountability for misapplication of influence or harassment of citizens. Legal frameworks in countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland set up clear guidelines and implementation mechanisms to monitor private security services.

In the United Kingdom, SIA authorizes licenses for individuals and firms, and if security personnel fail to comply with rules, this can result in criminal charges, court cases, permit cancellation, and company penalties. Similarly, in Ireland PSA controls and monitors individuals and companies providing private protocols. If security personnel violate the regulations, misuse of power and harassment can result in criminal prosecution, fines, imprisonment, and revocation of permit.

Legally, the presence of private protection agencies in Pakistan is regulated but implementation remains weak. While individuals and businesses are permitted to hire guards, the unfettered spread of illegal arms within these squads creates a law and order challenge.

For example, in April 2017, two private guards associated with a security company, in Karachi, looted 12 million Rupees from a cash van, underlining the risk of crimes within unregulated security firms, as one of the guards was appointed without his proper verification.

Tackling this issue involves the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework to monitor private security firms, strict licensing, training, and oversight mechanisms. Law enforcement entities should take decisive actions against the unauthorized use of police insignia, illicit arms, and private militias operating outside the legal parameters.

Moreover, strict laws for gun control should be implemented to prevent the misuse of weapons by private guards. By enforcing these measures, Pakistan can restore the rule of law, solidify governmental authority, and ensure that public safety is a collective right rather than an entitlement for the elites.

Why Should Pakistan Be Careful?

Accountability Gaps

Unlike government troops, private contractors sometimes escape court examinations. Pakistan’s inadequate enforcement system can let wrongdoings go unpunished.

Diminishing State Monopoly on Force

Max Weber defined the state as its monopoly on lawful violence. Privatization weakens this idea by empowering non-state actors who might follow private interests.

Issues of Human Rights

From forced disappearances to extrajudicial executions, Pakistan already battles security sector abuses. Including profit-motivated players might aggravate infractions.

The rise of private security protocols in Punjab and across Pakistan posits a steep challenge to citizen protection and state authority. Learning from international examples, it is essential for Pakistan to enforce a strong regulatory framework to address the problems stemming from the proliferation of private security services.

Pakistan has to:

Adopt particular legislation governing PMSCs and guaranteeing adherence to global human rights norms.

Boost court supervision to stop private actors from acting freely.

Learn from international mistakes—the horrors of Blackwater and the cartel battles in Mexico should serve as cautionary tales.

While privatising security is not necessarily bad, it runs the danger of further undermining Pakistan’s already precarious legal system in the absence of strong legal protections.

The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.

Memoona Kiani, a student of International Relations, is keenly interested in global security dynamics and is exploring the impact of privatized security on state authority and public safety, with a special focus on its implications for Pakistan.

Post Views: 131

#right to privacy accountability counterterrorism governance humanrights Pakistan Rawalpindi Supreme Court