The government’s chief spokesperson Shibli Faraz and the spokesperson for the PML-N, Marriyum Aurangzeb, were embroiled on Sunday in another spat over the “NRO” (National Reconciliation Ordinance), a term used in political circles to allege the seeking of amnesty for serious crimes. “History stands witness that time and again the PML-N leadership has chosen to escape the country and the law,” wrote Faraz in a tweet to which documents showing proposed amendments to the accountability law were attached. Responding to the information minister’s tweets, PML-N spokesperson Marriyum Aurangzeb said that the “incompetent blue-eyed boys cannot even legislate, which is why the National Assembly speaker formed a parliamentary committee for the review of FATF laws”. She said that approval for the committee had been accorded by the entire parliament. “Shibli sahab, did the speaker ask for an NRO? Did the entire parliament ask for one?” Aurangzeb asked. She said that by “waving these documents about in the public eye”, Faraz was accusing the speaker and the parliament as well of seeking amnesty. The PML-N spokesperson said that the committee formed includes government officials who are “sought in cases pertaining to Malam Jabba, BRT, Billion Tree Tsunami, helicopter use, 23 secret accounts, foreign funding corruption, and are accused of stealing flour and sugar”. “They are being provided concessions for the past two years,” she added. Aurangzeb said that meanwhile, the opposition has already served jail sentences and remained incarcerated in NAB custody. “Their innocence has already been proven by the Supreme Court and high court verdicts, besides human rights organisations speaking out against the apparent NAB-Niazi nexus,” said the PML-N leader. She asked whether it is the opposition who would then “seek an NRO” or would the government representatives who “including the prime minister and president are absconding in ECP and NAB cases and do not appear before the court”. “We had challenged Imran Khan sahab earlier as well to contemplate on who it is that is actually seeking an NRO from whom,” Aurangzeb said. The PML-N spokesperson said that the party had already said the “selected prime minister has no standing to even grant amnesty under the NRO”. Earlier, Shibli Faraz tagged the opposition draft for amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, tweeting that these were the “sources and documents through which the NRO was requested”. He said that for several days, the PML-N leadership had been giving the impression that they had not demanded any concessions but the draft of the amendments to NAB Ordinance given by the opposition belied the PML-N claim. According to documents shared by the minister, PML-N proposed amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and proposed “Provided however, that NAB shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation or file any reference for an alleged offence after the passing of five years from the date of the transaction or at constituting the offence”. It further proposed that after sub-section (b) a new sub-section (bb) shall be inserted as follows: “National Accountability Bureau shall not initiate action on allegations contained in a complaint which is anonymous or pseudonymous or which do not involve public money or in which the amount involve is less than one billion rupees or which under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, cannot be investigated due to lapse of time or relate to a period for which records need not to be maintained by the holder of the public office.” It proposed that sub-section (a) shall be omitted and for sub-section (b) the following shall be substituted, namely: “Where at any time during inquiry or after the authorization of investigation , before or after the commencement of the trial or during the pendency of an appeal, the holder of public office or any other person offers to return to the NAB the assets are gains acquired or made in the course, or as consequence of any offence under this ordinance, the chairman NAB may in his discretion after taking into considerations the facts and circumstances of the case accept the offer on such terms and conditions as he may consider necessary, and if the holder of public office or any other person agreed to return to the NAB the amount determined by the chairman NAB, who shall then refer the case for the approval of the court or the appellate court as the case may be for the release of the holder of public office or any other person as well as his co-accused.”