Daily Times

Anti-corruption drives are usually initiated with high hopes, considerable fanfare and, at times, real political support from top-level leadership. But success has been elusive at best: even where the Governments are part of bona fide reform efforts, very few success stories can be reported. Even at the level of society, there will be survival corruption unless individuals can achieve a minimum standard of living through their jobs. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was established on November 16, 1999 by the National Accountability Ordinance to investigate matters relating to the corruption of public office holders, businessmen and politicians. The Bureau has been placed under the radar in modern economic discourse.

Over the past few days, the Federal Cabinet has raised serious concerns on amending the NAB Ordinance and efforts are now being made on bringing procedural changes to the anti-corruption law on an immediate basis. The Chairman NAB, Justice Javed (r) Iqbal recently stated that NAB will not pursue sales, income tax cases against businessmen. The concerns are raised after the Government received complaints from businessmen that the bureau is responsible for crippling the economy since it has put fear amongst bureaucrats and investors. In any country, Stock Markets play a vital role in the functioning of the economy by providing the backbone to a modern nation’s economic infrastructure. However, considering the first year of the PTI lead government and the aggressive anti-corruption drive for the betterment of the society, the Capital Market fell 32% resulting in losses of billions of rupees which is irreparable. There is no doubt that there are flaws in the Law and fixing the Anti-corruption legal system should be a priority to save the declining economy. It should be applauded that the Federal Cabinet and the Government took notice and made recommendations of amending the anti-graft law.

The Law Minister addressed a number of issues. Starting with the first, pertaining toempowering the Accountability Court to grant a bail. Under the NAO 1999, there is no provision in respect to granting a bail in the Accountability Court at the moment. If such provision is added, this will help to close the floodgates of Protective bail and Post-arrest bail cases in the High Court, thus giving the higher Court some space to focus on other pending cases of both Civil and Criminal nature.

Dragging anyone into investigation under the broad terms of cognizance will only act as a crusade. NAB should focus on mega corruption cases only and recover the looted amount from corrupt Politicians and Bureaucrats

The second recommendation by the Cabinet is regarding excluding a Private person from the Jurisdiction of NAB. This again will positively facilitate business persons who were arrested only on mere suspicion. The NAB aims at eradicating corruption and to recover looted amount, prosecuting private persons will not help the anti-graft body recover any reasonable amount since cases of private persons are mostly of civil nature or are disputes amongst parties which can be resolved without NABs intervention. We can see References initiated against Private persons with no logical outcomes, In fact, their trials take years to conclude adding additional burdens and costs to the Accountability Courts and the bureau. The amount of money in mega corruption cases linked with Politicians cannot be recovered from a Private person who has no nexus with any public office holder, infact it is a waste of time to focus on private matters when other Laws. Institutions and Courts are there to resolve private cases.

A controversial area is the Plea Bargain law of the NAB (Section 25 NAO 1999) which receives much criticism in the country as some view it as a relief for the accused which is however not the case. The Government has recommended bringing changes in this area of law as well. Currently, under the NAB law, an accused availing the facility of Plea Bargain is deemed convicted with strings attached of losing his right to hold a public office for the next 10 years or availing any loan or financial facility. There is a wrong perception of public at large which considers that an accused is released free of charge by only returning partial amount of looted amount. Realistically, NAB is successful in recovering more than the determined looted amount as in many cases; NAB recovered the amount based on current market value and further returned it to the victims. As previously urged by the Chairman NAB, I strongly agree and recommend that the Plea Bargain law should not be abolished as it will defeat the sole purpose of NAB to recover the looted amount as prescribed in their Preamble when the Ordinance was established. It is one law which serves the Public interest and so for the State at a time when the country is struggling with financial constraints. However, NAB should improve the Plea Bargain law by introducing better SOP’s and empower the Courts to intervene in Plea Bargain deals rather than only leaving the discretion on the Chairman NAB. The sole purpose of the law should be to benefit the public-at-large by recovering and returning their looted amount. Putting corrupt people behind bars without any recovery will not benefit anyone rather be an additional cost on the State. If an imprisonment is attached with Plea Bargain, no corrupt person will be willing to return any amount to the State, infact it will increase abscondance and sending the looted amount abroad from where it is impossible to recover so I believe the Plea Bargain law should remain intact; however it should be made easier rather than complex.

My personal recommendation is that amendments are required in respect to Physical Remand in NAB cases. For instance, Section 24 of NAO 1999 provides the NAB chairman the powers of arrest for the purposes of investigating an accused for a period of 90 days, whereas under the general law codified in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the physical remand of an accused cannot, under any circumstances, exceed 15 days. This is an area which also needs to be fixed as many persons released after remand were considered not guilty as seen in the Aleem Khan (MNA PTI) case.

The NAB law requires a wholesale review by parliament to restrain it from opening an investigation without proper inquiry and sufficient grounds, and arresting suspects without hard evidence against them, as well as to bar it from encroaching on the territory of other state agencies with a similar mandate. Legally, in the Civil and Criminal Code, legislation and administrative procedural regulations, clear and enforceable regulations should specify what constitutes corruption and associated penalties. Appropriately resourced executive, judicial and independent institutions should enforce these legal requirements. Dragging anyone into investigation under the broad terms of cognizance will only act as a crusade. NAB should focus on mega corruption cases only and recover the looted amount from corrupt Politicians and Bureaucrats. It should refrain from targeting Private persons who have no nexus with public office holders as such cases will not serve the sole purpose of the NAB ordinance. In these crucial times when the Country is economically struggling and over burdened with external debt, laws should be legislated to create a business friendly environment. However, anti-corruption drives and efforts may continue but only against public office holders and politicians involved in Mega corruption cases.

The writer is a Lawyer in Pakistan who is a Senior Associate at Raza Qasuri Law. He holds a B.B.A. from Heriot-Watt University U.K. and a L.L.B. Hons. from University of London. He can be reached at adam.qasurilaw@gmail.com