The establishment of the Ombudsman in Pakistan was advocated on several occasions. It was Article 276 of the Interim Constitution of 1972 that provided for the appointment of a Federal Ombudsman as well as Provincial Ombudsmen for the first time. Subsequently, the Constitution of 1973 included the Federal Legislative List in the Fourth Schedule. The institution was first established in Pakistan in August 1983 under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. The Office was bested with the power to redress public complaints against administrative excesses.

Later, provincial Mohtasibs were appointed in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan, while a separate Federal Tax Ombudsman was appointed in 2000 to address citizens complaints against tax functionaries. A Banking Ombudsman was also appointed on April 29, 2005, based in Karachi and with regional offices in Lahore, Peshawar and Quetta to handle complaints in the banking sector, a task earlier dealt by the State Bank of Pakistan.

The main functions entrusted to the Wafaqi Mohtasib were to diagnose, investigate, redress and to rectify any injustice done to public through mal-administration of an agency of the Federal Government. This Order provided a speedy and inexpensive mode of addressing public grievances against the state. The Mohtasib was vested with wide jurisdiction to inquire into the affairs of all the offices of the Federal Government, except the Supreme Court, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Shariat Court and the High Courts. S/he could investigate any complaint, except in respect of matters which are sub judice or which relate to external affairs or the Armed Forces. The Supreme Court of Pakistan appreciated this extended jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib in redressing public grievances caused due to mal-administration of an agency of the Federal Government, and observed that this institution was the most appropriate forum for the purpose.

Since its inception in August 1983 to December 2000, the Federal Ombudsman dealt with 401,897 complaints. Of these, 66 percent related to federal agencies, while the remaining 34 percent were provincial matters and thus not falling under the purview of the Ombudsman. Of the complaints against federal agencies, about half were admitted for thorough investigation, while the remaining were not entertained for the reason that these were sub judice, service matters or premature, or no mal-administration appeared to have been found.

Despite an average of roughly 40,000 complaints received annually by the Federal Ombudsman over past two decades, this number is still very low when seen against the country’s population of 150 million. This is one indicator of the modest outreach and effectiveness of the institution. Many systemic and institutional hindrances have diluted the effectiveness of the institution and there is evidence of government agencies not taking the Ombudsman’s recommendations seriously.

Lack of a separate implementation mechanism is another problem. The process of implementation will be facilitated if the powers vested under Articles 12 and 16 of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 are also made exercisable in respect of cases under implementation by all Mohtasibs. In the absence of such provision, the Wafaqi Mohtasib is presently confronted with the critical problem of executing his orders and decisions.

A particularly problematic aspect of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is its appeal process. The orders and determinations of Federal Ombudsman are appeal-able before the President of Pakistan where these appeals gather dust and are subsequently disposed of without any judicial appreciation.

• In December 1992, the Pakistan Law Commission reviewed the organizational structure of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the powers under President’s Order No. 1 of 1983 to implement his orders/decisions. It noted certain deficiencies which needed to be overcome. Firstly, the term ‘Agency’ in Article 2 (1) of the Order did not expressly include a body, authority or organization, not directly controlled by the Federal Government. Thus a subsidiary or associated company or a holding company established by the Government, escaped the jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mothasib. The Commission recommended amendment of the term ‘Agency’ by inserting directly or indirectly’ after the word controlled’.

• Secondly, in the absence of any prescribed qualification for the appointment of Wafaqi Motasib  the Commission recommended that Article 3 (1) of the Order be amended to expressly provide for appointment to the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib  from persons who are or have been a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, excluding its Chief Justice.

• Thirdly, the Wafaqi Mohtasib faced problems in getting his orders/decisions implemented. Under Article 11 of the Order, the Wafaqi could not implement his findings by his own order. He was required to communicate these to the agency concerned for taking action on the lines recommended by him. In case the agency did not comply with his recommendations and it appeared to him that the injustice was not likely to be remedied, he could lay a special report to this effect before the President for seeking implementation of his orders. The Commission viewed this anomaly with concern, and opined that Wafaqi Mohtasib should not be helpless to redress a grievance when he reached the conclusion that the situation was unjustified and should be corrected. Such a situation would  shake public confidence in the institution of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and lead to piling of complaints and grievances against the government. The Commission, therefore, recommended that the Wafaqi Mohtasib be empowered to pass appropriate order for seeking execution of his orders before placing a special report to this effect before the President. However, amendments in the 1983 Order made in October 2002 do not incorporate these recommendations.