In a significant session of the judicial commission investigating the devastating fire at Karachi’s Gul Plaza shopping mall, the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) engaged in a detailed cross-examination of the Civil Defence’s Technical Adviser. The hearing focused on the response to the fire, the adequacy of safety measures, and the firefighting techniques employed during the incident that claimed numerous lives and caused extensive damage.
Mursaleen Baig, the Civil Defence Adviser, revealed that he first learned about the fire through a television broadcast, highlighting the suddenness and scale of the disaster. This initial information set the tone for the inquiry, as officials sought to piece together the timeline and effectiveness of the emergency response. The CFO raised concerns regarding allegations that firefighting teams did not utilize foam, a critical extinguishing agent, to combat the blaze effectively.
Baig explained that the fire at Gul Plaza was classified as a Class B fire, which involves flammable liquids and requires specialized extinguishing methods. He emphasized that had the firefighting teams entered the premises, they would have recognized the fire’s specific nature. him, water was ineffective in suppressing the flames, which indicated that alternative measures, such as foam, should have been deployed promptly to control the fire.
He further elaborated on the importance of foam and chemical agents in firefighting, noting that these substances work by cutting off oxygen supply to combustible materials, thereby halting the fire’s spread. Baig stressed the necessity of making timely decisions to switch to foam if water proves inadequate, underscoring a critical aspect of fire management that may have been overlooked during the Gul Plaza incident.
The CFO also questioned the Civil Defence’s prior assessment of Gul Plaza’s fire safety standards. He pointed out that the Civil Defence had conducted a fire audit of the building and found the safety arrangements to be insufficient. This raised serious questions about the enforcement of safety regulations and whether the identified shortcomings were addressed before the tragedy occurred.
One of the more contentious moments during the hearing involved the CFO asking why the Civil Defence had failed to submit a challan—a formal legal document—against the building’s management for these safety violations. However, Justice Agha Faisal intervened, reminding the CFO that his role was limited to cross-examining the statement of the technical instructor and not to probe administrative procedures such as challan submissions.
The commission decided to pause the proceedings and reconvene on March 18 to allow further examination of evidence and testimonies. The Gul Plaza fire, which erupted on the night of January 17, engulfed the commercial complex on M.A. Jinnah Road and trapped dozens of people inside. The fire raged uncontrollably for more than 32 hours before firefighters managed to bring it under control.
This catastrophic event exposed glaring weaknesses in Karachi’s emergency response infrastructure and fire safety enforcement. It has sparked widespread calls for reforms to prevent such tragedies in the future. As the judicial commission continues its work, the focus remains on accountability, improving firefighting protocols, and ensuring that safety audits translate into effective preventive measures.
