Despite the passage of two years, the government and the opposition have failed to reach a consensus on the new draft of the accountability law despite the fact that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been made dysfunctional and no other tool of accountability is available but the media, which keeps a close watch on the government’s malpractices and corruption.
The main opposition party, the PML-N, claims the government has always betrayed the law and justice standing committee members on different clauses of the new law to deliberately delay the new law while the PPP says the negative approach by the PML-N members was the cause of the delay. As the chairwoman of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice Begum Nasim Chaudhry has summoned a committee meeting during the first week of July, the PML-N dissenting notes have also been annexed, the PML-N member of the committee Anushe Rehman hopes that this time the notes of dissent would be discussed.
Talking to Pakistan Today, Anushe and Nasim held each other’s party responsible for the delay in reaching a consensus. “I think that the government is creating misunderstanding vis-à-vis the accountability law. Even they are not clear on the status of NAB. As you can check the government has made financial allocation for the NAB showing it under the Cabinet Division despite the fact that it comes under the administrative control of the law and justice ministry,” she added.
On the other hand, Nasim said the PML-N leadership had delayed the law as Nawaz Sharif had included the issue in his 10-point agenda due to which the committee did not take it up. “Despite having majority in the committee, my party did not bulldoze this law and wanted a consensus over it. The PML-N wants a serving judge to head the new accountability commission while there is no provision for a serving judge to head such a commission under the national judicial policy introduced by the chief justice of Pakistan. When we raised this point, they said it was also in the Charter of Democracy (CoD). When we followed the CoD, there was no such provision either,” she said.
She said the ‘N-leaguers’ also wanted a provision in the law under which any individual could be brought to Pakistan under the international cooperation without sharing any evidence. “They want a law like General [Pervez] Musharraf introduced under which red warrants could be issued against any individual without any proof submitted which is against all international protocols. We want a provision that some evidence must be shared prior to issuance of the red warrants,” she added.
Both parties, however, agree on the infamous plea bargain law which allows any person to indulge in corruption to any extent and if he is caught, he will be allowed to return the looted money and go scot-free. Anushe said the PML-N members had a clear mandate to ensure that the new bill adequately addressed legitimate public concerns ensuring that the officials institutionalise across-the-board accountability of all holders of public office, without fear, favour or exception.
“For the purpose, we submitted 58 proposals and amendments to the draft bill. Despite the committee an overwhelming number of PPP members (eight of the 17), the four PML-N members continued to voice serious concerns and reservations to seek evolution of a consensus bill that would help eradicate the mischief inherent in the functioning of the current organisational structures,” she said.
“The positive aspect of the plea bargain was that the looted money had been recovered while the culprit had to be disqualified after the recovery. However, its negative aspect was that the NAB used to have its share. We want all the recovered money to be deposited with the federal consolidated fund,” said Anushe said when asked why her party supported the plea bargain.
She said the PML-N was determined not to be party to a law that was self-defeating, rather it sought to evolve a consensus for the establishment of a credible, judicious and transparent organisation, which had to be vested with administrative, financial and functional independence. She said her party had opposed the proposal for the three-year limitation period and pleaded for denial of immunity to holders of public office for acts supposed to have been done in “good faith.”
It opposed reduction of the present 14-year imprisonment to seven years for its being inconsistent with the objects of the enactment. “We wanted the title of the bill to be changed from Holders of Public Offices (Accountability) Act to National Accountability Commission Act. The committee took up the PML-N amendments one by one, and while many were accepted because of their undisputed merit, four important proposals were dropped by the committee by majority vote: The applicability of the law to holders of public office was made effective from Jan 1, 1985, after the rejection of the PML-N’s proposal to extend its coverage to 1947. That the chairman of the proposed National Accountability Commission be a serving judge of the Supreme Court”.