A perversity called the Accountability Bill

“Good faith” corruption against the rest

The government has introduced the “National Accountability Commission Bill, 2012” in the parliament. It is tantamount to extending perversity to the limit – and then some beyond! Many are already dubbing it the dry-cleaned version of the NRO.

There are three aspects to the bill that need to be looked into. The first is a technicality relating to whether a bill pending before the house could be withdrawn which had either been approved by the concerned committee or was being discussed by it. The second is about some clauses of the proposed bill which negate the concept of accountability and the third relates to the devious manner in which the chairman of the proposed commission will be nominated that is bound to hijack the entire process of accountability.

While the technicality of rule 120 whether a pending bill could be withdrawn from the assembly which had been approved by the relevant house committee and a new one introduced remains a matter to be debated by the legal minds, there are two clauses in the proposed bill that need to be looked into closely. The first one relates to limiting the time period for initiating an enquiry or investigation into corruption or corrupt practices: “The commission shall not enquire or investigate into any complaint if the same is made after the expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which the offence mentioned in such complaint is alleged to have been committed”. In other words, crime and an investigation into it are being time-bound: if one commits a crime no matter how serious, and it is not reported for a period of ten years, as may happen given the deep-set corruption in the entire society, he or she would not be held accountable for the said corruption committed. In other words, the criminal walks free without even being charged with the crime. By extension, should one envision that if a criminal who, after having committed a murder, succeeds in hiding the crime for a period of ten years, would walk a free person? Indeed, this is not an ennobling yardstick to go by!

Then there is this weird clause relating to a crime having been committed in “good faith”. Under this clause, a person would enjoy immunity if he or she was found guilty of having committed wrongdoing in “good faith”. Now, who will determine whether a crime had been committed in cold-blood or in “good faith”? This takes us directly to the third point – the one relating to the appointment of the head of the proposed accountability commission to be called the chairman.

The process is so formulated that, ultimately, it would become the prerogative of the prime minister to nominate the chairman of the proposed commission. The prime minister and the leader of the opposition would try to come to an understanding with regard to the person who should be appointed to the coveted position. If that does not happen in fourteen days, they will each propose two people for the post which shall be sent to the Standing Committee of National Assembly on Law and Justice for confirmation of one name within fourteen days. If that also does not happen, as is bound to in an environment that has been vitiated by a growing trust-deficit, the prime minister shall send a list of two persons to the committee for selecting one. If the members cannot choose one, the name listed at number one on the list shall be deemed to have been confirmed as the chairman of the proposed commission who shall then be authorised to determine which crime has been committed in cold blood and which in “good faith”.

The nation can rest assured that most of the crimes, in any case, are committed in “good faith”. Or, looking at it conversely, if a person is actually caught having committed a crime, which is a rare phenomenon in any case, will he or she not contend aggressively that it had actually been done in “good faith”? It will go even further: excuses like threat to national sovereignty and security would be dragged in as cogent reasons for having had to indulge in a small misdeed – like decamping with a few million, even a few billion from the state exchequer. That is extending the concept of “good faith” a bit too far which would, ultimately, and quite cynically, become the buzz word for corruption itself. So, one will have to invest time and effort to distinguish the “good faith” corruption from the rest.

There is also an issue regarding the eligibility of the person who can be appointed the chairman of the proposed commission. The government favours a serving or a retired judge of the Supreme Court (SC) for the position, or even a person who is qualified to be a judge of the SC. There is widespread belief that such a person should at least be a serving judge of the SC because it is feared that a person who has retired from a position is more amenable to be manipulated. Obviously, it is not in the interest of the government to get an incorruptible person for this coveted position when it has so much and so many to hide from public exposure.

Ultimately, it all boils down to intentions. In the presence of clauses relating to a crime being time-bound or done in “good faith”, there is little ambiguity left as to the government’s real motives in piloting this bill through the assembly. Like I said earlier, it is another name for that much-hated formulation called the NRO. Its sole purpose is to legitimise the void ab initio document by safeguarding the members of the ruling party from being tried for corruption. In other words, this would be the beginning of introducing the concept of finding a ‘legal’ rationale for corruption because sometimes, nay oftentimes, one is ‘forced’ to indulge in corruption in the act of rendering one’s duty to the state and to the people. Soon we’ll have a state where no one would be guilty of committing corruption because all corruption, if committed, would be in “good faith”. I call this intellectual perversity which, indeed, may have no remedy!

The writer is a political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]