The challenge was set to be more accountable for what the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) actually did. This call to account for transparent performance achieved a new insult in wake of recent criticisms. A three-member bench, headed by Justice (retd) Amir Hani Muslim, has ordered NAB’s chairman to present the option of an early retirement to at least four officials it found to be promoted in contravention of educational criteria. The increasing clout of NAB raises an important question: who selected the? or, for that matter, why were they given these postings? The concept of appointees as advisers is unsurprising. What’s new is the failure to utilise merit and extent of the power.
The organisation was originally established by former president, Pervez Musharraf, to try corrupt officials and political leaders. However, reports of continuous culture of nepotism and chain of cover-ups remain the choking point in its history.
NAB repeatedly failed to meet deadlines to wind up cases against serving and former government officials including three prime ministers. Such measures have become a regular norm.
Among other loopholes in its legal framework, Voluntary Return (VR) and Plea Bargain (PB) provisions under Section 25 are considered the worst. Although the Supreme Court had restrained NAB’s chairman from using VR, PB can still be used. PB turns out to be the preferred choice of corrupt officials such as Mushtaq Raisani for it sets them free even if they embezzled hefty amounts.
The organisation is rife with an arrogant and corrupt culture that is leading us to socio-economic disasters. It has been criticised for promoting and facilitating corruption rather than eliminating it. The bureau has also been placed under scrutiny for turning a blind eye to mega corruption cases.
Whether the issue is of cronyism, corruption or national security, NAB has much to answer for: its secrecy, its inability to keep promises, its lack of accountability, its inability to exercise constitutional authority and its arrogance in the face of growing malfeasance.
Often the word corruption is taken to mean the abandonment of expected behavioural standards by those in authority for the sake of personal benefits. While there can be little doubt that favouritism granted to relatives or close friends, without regard to their merit, does take place at all levels, it is certainly a minor in comparison to the insidious form of corruption prevalent in the public sector.
This form of corruption, which may be generally described as the perversion or abandonment of standards, is evident in NAB’s governance over the past few years with the ethics of public service polluted.
Corruption scandals unearthed by NAB have been less serious and poorly thought through not least because of the criticism it receives regarding accountability from critics in the judiciary and media. This sort of accountability should respond to two areas of interrogation: the veracity of what they say and the authority with which they probe. Although obviously linked, questions of veracity are essentially empirical and require proof. While questions of authority are essentially political, NAB has failed to respond to both. It has firmly kept to its mantra of politically favoured power dynamics.
The questions it should ask are if it speaks as the authority, with the authority, for the authority or about the authority? As so often in life, it is the little words in debates that are complicated. Arguments of NAB’s accountability are essentially prepositional and hinge on the nature of their relationship with the powerful or the custodians of politics.
If performance is critical to NAB’s legitimacy then it must find convincing and transparent ways of improving it. If goodwill and trust are critical then it must find ways to gauge such intangibles. Furthermore, beyond just proving and gauging, it must also show that it acts on them. The institution will lose its legitimacy if found to be constantly catering to the wishes of the rich and powerful.
The writer is a professor of psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at [email protected]