Daily Times

In the middle of this year, when Nawaz Sharif became the prime minister of Pakistan, it was thought that he would have learnt from his past mistakes. The omens are that this may not be the case. When the government of Sharif was ousted in 1999, the masses could not protest against his unconstitutional removal because there were no local bodies to hold protest demonstrations. Secondly, the allegation of corruption was the attack slogan of General Pervez Musharraf to constitute his own government instead. The slogan stirred the masses and Musharraf secured people’s favour.

Currently, there are four institutions the independence and functioning (as per law) of which guarantees the continuation of democracy uninterrupted by any military intervention. The first institution is the judiciary, the second is the media, the third is the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the fourth is the local bodies. The first two are independent and fully functional while the last two are the victims of political lassitude and indifference, which is unfortunately being exercised by the Sharif government.

The point is not who constituted the NAB (which is a legacy of the Musharraf era); the point is why it is being rendered non-functional wilfully (when there is no substitute and when it can serve the anti-corruption purpose). The ruse of corruption remained a justification for the ouster of elected governments in the past; the same may happen in the future by invoking the same subterfuge. It is to remind the political forces that the restoration of the post-2007 democracy did not take place owing to any political struggle launched by political parties. Instead, it was the movement of the restoration of the judiciary in which lawyers, the members of civil society and the media took part in 2007. That movement paved the way for the entry of the exiled political leaders, including Sharif, possible in 2008.

The question is this: why should the members of civil society launch pro-democracy movements or anti-dictatorship struggles when the politicians make glaring mistakes such as rendering the institution of NAB headless and, consequently, functionless? Civil society is not meant for playing second fiddle to selfish politicians who overlook the importance of any anti-corruption unit or even the local bodies that could benefit the country. It is just a shame that the Sharif government has wasted about three months to mull over the name of the chairman of NAB, whether or not in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. In principle, the appointment of the chairman should have been the first priority of the Sharif government and the matter should have been dealt with in the first week of the departure of the previous chairman. However, this is not the case. It is the Supreme Court that is reminding the government of its responsibility. Unfortunately, civil society is silent on this issue and the media is not discussing this matter either.

The Sharif government should answer who would issue arrest warrants for culprits in the absence of the chairman of NAB. Is the government not aware of the responsibilities of the chairman of NAB as per the NAB Ordinance? If culprits cannot be caught, corruption cannot be curbed in society. Secondly, the government should tell how it is possible to prosecute a culprit when no trial can take place that has to be sanctioned by the chairman of NAB. Who is responsible for the absence or delay in trials, which in turn allows the culprit to secure bail? Once the bail is confirmed, the culprit is scot-free. To capture the culprit again needs a lot of resources and time. How many times should the NAB apprehend the same culprit from around the world? Thirdly, in the absence of the chairman of NAB, who should take policy decisions such as employing people on contract, renewal of contracts, and promotions of the NAB officials? Government should answer why it is bringing the officials of the NAB under pressure and stress by keeping the chairman absent. Fourthly, who will issue the honorarium to the officials of NAB who have worked day and night to catch culprits and recover the looted wealth? Depriving the officials of their due economic reward is an act of injustice to them. Does the government want to keep the confidence of the NAB officials down? The government is playing a dangerous game. By keeping the seat of the NAB Chairman vacant, the government is pressurising the NAB officials to stay deprived of their due reward and think of out-of-the-NAB settlements with the culprits. In this way, the government is inadvertently abetting corruption. Those NAB officials who do their job honestly and with dedication should be rewarded timely. Fifthly, what about the morale of the NAB officials? How can a headless institution enforce its will on the corrupt elements of society? Why should the corrupt be scared of a headless NAB? The Sharif government should understand that the NAB without its chairman poses no threat to the corrupt of society. Sixthly, in the absence of the chairman of NAB, who will take care of the welfare of the NAB officials? In the recent past, a housing society had been proposed. The paperwork was complete. However, the vacant post of the chairman halted all practical work on the housing society. To live in an organised and secure surrounding is a right of the NAB officials. Field work cannot be started unless approved by the chairman. Is the government not aware of this important point?

Pakistani society is blighted with corruption while the government has deliberately rendered the anti-corruption institution, NAB, functionless. Should this not concern the members of civil society?

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com