Daily Times

Fighting corruption must be the priority in our country if we want to bring this nation back on the right path. The dismal state of our economy, the difficulties that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) faces, the deteriorated state of the institutions including the judiciary are, among other reasons, due to corruption that over the decades has been seeping into the structure with the dismal results that we are facing today.

Corruption has to be fought top-down so that the corrupt sitting at the top of the political power hierarchy would have to go first so as to be unable to disturb and interrupt the process any more. One of the most visible success stories is the dethroning of former PM Nawaz Sharif in the process. The case has shown how difficult it is to prove corruption in a court. At the end Nawaz got convicted for lying and tampering with documents not for the actual corruption which was there without doubt but could not be fully proven. Other cases like the one against former President of Pakistan Zardari and his sister for financial corruption, money laundering through fake or benami accounts are still in the making.

Among the many obstacles that the NAB is facing is the practice of giving bail or even pre-arrest bail to the accused thus making the inquiries more difficult. This is a departure from the intention of the law giver who is quoted by http://www.lawsofpakistan.com as follows: “Right of pre-arrest bail is rare and very limited which could be extended in very strong and exceptional circumstances, which are based on malafide / enmity. Section 498 Cr.P.C. throw light on the topic of pre-arrest bail. This section empowers High Court or session court to grant pre-arrest bail in cases of exceptional nature. But such power has to be exercised according to rule and guiding lay down by superior courts. Hence if we sum up the main conditions before grant of pre-arrest bail those are: (1) Genuine proved apprehension of imminent arrest; (2) Petitioner should physically surrender to the court; (3) apprehension of harassment and under irreparable humiliation by unjustified arrest; and(4) It should be otherwise fit case on merits.

There is no likelihood that the bulk of the looted money could be returned to Pakistan. But the looters can be punished so as to stop corruption in future. Right now even that seems impossible with the judiciary acting the way it does.

There is no likelihood that the bulk of the looted money could be returned to Pakistan. But the looters can be punished so as to stop corruption in future. Right now even that seems impossible with the judiciary acting the way it does.

In today’s Pakistan there is a real flood of bail, interim bail and pre-arrest bail especially with regard to NAB accused. A week or so ago the Lahore High Court (LHC) granted Punjab Assembly Opposition Leader Hamza Shahbaz pre-arrest bail till April 17 in the Ramzan Sugar Mills and Saaf Pani Company cases. A week before that the NAB had tried to arrest him for failing to cooperate with the investigation against him and was prevented from doing so by hundreds of loyalists of the Sharif family who stood like a human wall. The state proved helpless in the face of its own citizens. Later the LHC that seemed to be siding with the Sharif when they issued an interim bail order that effectively sent the NAB packing and saved Hamza from arrest. In another case Hamza Shahbaz again avoided appearing before the NAB in investigations against him related to assets beyond means and money laundering. It’s the third consecutive time that Hamza didn’t appear before the Combined Investigation Team of the National Accountability Bureau in the said investigations. Will the same thing happen when the NAB tries to arrest him for not cooperating with the investigation?

His father, Shahbaz Sharif, was given bail in the Ashiana-i-Iqbal Housing Scheme and Ramzan Sugar Mills cases. He had been in custody since October last and since then has left Pakistan for London with his wife. He also obtained visas for his mother and four of his staff members. One of the condition for bail are that the accused should not leave the country! And finally, Nawaz Sharif who has been serving a seven-year prison sentence awarded to him by an accountability court in the Al Azizia corruption case has been released on bail for six weeks to obtain medical treatment. It seems that the courts feel very much obliged to the Sharifs and that throws a strange light on their commitment to fight corruption.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. The NAB has been investigating Zardari, Talpur, Omni Group Chairman Anwar Majeed, former Pakistan Stock Exchange chairperson Hussain Lawai, Summit Bank Senior Vice-President Taha Raza and other close associates of Zardari in the fake accounts case. During court proceedings on 6 September 2018, two more companies M/s Landmarks and National Gases (Pvt) Limited (M/s NGS) were revealed in addition to already identified companies which were used to launder billions of rupees. M/s Landmarks is owned by Zardari, Talpur, and Pechuho in a partnership. Both companies were discovered from the hard disks which were recovered when Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) raided Khoski Sugar Mills owned by Omni Group, a franchise headed by Anwar Majeed. The IHC a couple of days ago extended the interim pre-arrest bail of Zardari and his sister Faryal Talpur till April 29, after having approved the bail petitions of the two on March 28. The same day the NAB sought cancellation of the bail granted to Zardari and his sister while arguing that it fears evidence tampering owing to the influence yielded by Zardari and the fact that Mr. Zardari was not cooperating with the bureau in the probe. The Bureau accused Zardari of deliberately misleading the court regarding his bail petition and did not deserve any leniency on the matter. But court seems to have happily agreed to be misled and bailed the two out.

Apart from these rather prominent cases there are multiple others where the accused is receiving bail by LHC or Islamabad High Court (IHC). This shows how difficult the fight against corruption in a legal way is. The weak state cannot convincingly offer protection to those who dare to witness or submit documents against the powerful of this country. The judges especially in the lower courts seem afflicted by the same virus. The argument that the laws of the country are promoting such behaviour is only partially valid. A strict implementation of the existing laws without ‘leniency’ (what kind of legal term is that?) and a real commitment by the judges to fight corruption can go a long way to reach this goal.

Corruption has become a way of life in Pakistan. The dismal economic situation our country is in at present is because of the looting of the national exchequer that has been going on for years. Foreign debt has risen to around 100 b $ and the debt of local banks is round 20 b $. There is no likelihood that the bulk of the looted money could be returned to Pakistan. But the looters can be punished so as to stop corruption in future. Right now even that seems impossible with the judiciary acting the way it does.

With the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and updated National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) serious efforts have been underway to tackle the deeply ingrained corruption in our state and institutions. NAO was designed as a supreme law that should override any other law in power. (Article 3) Since then efforts have been made to implement the NAO and bring corrupt people to justice while recovering illegally appropriated assets. That has been difficult at times when institutional support for the NAB was weak or the members of the NAB themselves were susceptible to pressure. But over the years the NAB has been becoming stronger and the idea of ‘assets beyond know means of income’ has become a workable definition to go ahead with investigations.

One solution could be the issuance of an Ordinance that puts a moratorium of 120 days on bails. If current bails are cancelled and no new bails are allowed for four months the accused will have to answer themselves the questions and provide the required information. 120 days should be enough to get things moving.

The writer is a defence and security analyst