A recent charge sheet presented by the Karachi police to the South judicial magistrate has highlighted severe negligence by the management of Gul Plaza, following a devastating fire earlier this year.
Details of the Incident
The fire, which broke out on January 17, took almost two days to control and resulted in the tragic loss of at least 73 lives, while over 1,100 shops were destroyed. An earlier charge sheet had been rejected for lacking a thorough investigation, but the revised version now identifies four individuals for trial. These include Naimatullah, who owned a shop in the plaza, and Tanveer Pasta, the president of the Gul Plaza Traders Association, along with two other members.
Firefighting Efforts and Management Failures
The charge sheet acknowledged the efforts of the fire brigade, Rescue 1122, and the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) in battling the blaze with the resources available to them. However, it sharply criticized the building management for their inadequate fire safety measures.
The report pointed out that the building lacked sufficient emergency equipment and lighting, which significantly hampered evacuation efforts. Additionally, it was revealed that only two exits were available during the fire, and several gates were locked, severely restricting escape routes.
Accountability and Institutional Failings
The investigation also found that the management had requested K-Electric to cut the power supply without having backup lighting, further complicating the situation. Moreover, the fire safety equipment was insufficient, and responsibilities for its maintenance were neglected.
The charge sheet referenced findings from both the Sindh government’s inquiry commission and a judicial commission, which also attributed negligence to the building management. Although some officials faced departmental action, no criminal negligence was found among the rescue authorities.
Systemic Issues Highlighted
The judicial commission’s report, led by Justice Agha Faisal, criticized the broader systemic failures of both provincial and municipal systems in ensuring urban safety. It emphasized the lack of effective implementation of existing legal and administrative frameworks.
The report noted that besides the fire itself, the incident was exacerbated by poor emergency preparedness, locked exits, and a lack of fire safety systems. Institutional responsibilities were attributed to various authorities, while material responsibility lay with the building’s de facto management.
