Addressing NAB
The issue with the Raisani plea bargain did not stem from a lack of understanding of Section-25 of the ’99 NAB Ordinance, which allows for voluntary return and plea bargain provisions. Neither the public at large nor the honourable Supreme Court – which implied NAB was, contrary to its mandate, facilitating corruption – need reminding of the fine print, not the least from NAB itself. And while it is true that the problem, considering the Pakistani setting, can only be set right by revisiting the Bureau’s legal make-up, it is also true that the exercise of accountability sometimes involves an element of maturity – beyond the black and white of the law – when making very serious decisions.
It is on the latter count that the Burea turned out a glaring failure. Now jokes do the rounds of the wicked and corrupt setting aside a little something from the bigger stash for the ‘voluntary’ walk-in, etc. The Bureau is, of course, completely justified in defending its position; but that’s strictly legally. Beyond closing the file on this particular case it has clearly not played the Section-25 too well. Now the Supreme Court is all over it, halting the voluntary return scheme for the time being, even if plea bargains are still expected to be all the rage.
The next we are likely to hear of this business is when the newly formed Parliamentary Committee on National Accountability Law will make recommendations on “necessary changes” in three months’ time. The trend so far suggests a major revision of the section in question, especially, in addition to much else probably. But then there’s also a bunch that firmly believes that not many esteemed members of parliament would be in favour of scrubbing the section off altogether. That, of course, is because some might have made such plans for themselves already.
