Does NAB stand for Non-Accountability Bureau?
Controversy already surrounded the mechanism of plea bargain, and with the Mushtaq Ahmad Raisani scandal and he getting cleared of charges, owing to plea bargain, things seem ridiculously funny
The Supreme Court recently dressed down NAB by asserting that the autonomous constitutional institution responsible to be torch-bearer of accountability is in fact facilitating corruption.
NAB is supposed to curtail corruption, and not facilitate it. This is how it goes according to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. It is an autonomous constitutional body, not under any political influence, answerable only to the president of Pakistan, an apolitical institution in itself.
However, recently NAB has been in the line of fire. Controversy already surrounded the mechanism of plea bargain, and with the Mushtaq Ahmad Raisani scandal and he getting cleared of charges, owing to plea bargain, things seem ridiculously funny. According to NAB prosecutor general, the amount under question was Rs2 billion and not Rs40 Billion, and there was an error in the report. Raisani, on the basis of plea bargaining and promising Rs2 billion to the accountability torch-bearer, is a free man, not bound to any imprisonment.
Such cases invoke an outcry of rage, fury, disappointment, anguish, agitation in the civil society and responsible citizens. And shouldn’t they? How can a citizen with a patriotic heart close his eyes to such blatant abuse of power? And with the Supreme Court understanding it too puts NAB in a precarious situation – a situation like never before
The political problem
NAB, as stated earlier, is an apolitical institution, answerable only to the president. However, this is in theory. And it is important to scrutinise whether this holds in practice too.
With the transition of government in 2013, one of the very first steps taken was to entrust the prime minister of Pakistan the tough job of restructuring NAB’s previous leadership, and leading to dismissal of the previous NAB chairman, and in October 2013, Qamar Zaman Chaudhry was appointed.
According to Section-6 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the NAB chairman has to be appointed by the president of Pakistan in consultation with the leader of the house and leader of the opposition to keep it impartial.
However, here is an inherent clash. The NAB chairperson is a civil servant. According to Civil Servants’ Act, 1973, Section-9, promotion to grade 22 has to be done by a High Powered Selection Board, headed by the PM himself. The National Accountability Ordinance, on the other hand, calls for the president to appoint the chairperson of NAB. Going back to Civil Servants’ Act, it needs to be seen whether Mr Qamar Zaman Chaudhry was to be appointed in BPS-22 at that time or was he just given a new assignment? Who actually appointed him and what are the dynamics of the appointment?
These questions are important because they will decide whether NAB is apolitical as promised or not. Moreover, in 2015, most of the brunt of accountability drive had to be borne by the opposition, which again raises questions on the credibility of NAB
Plea bargain – legitimising the illegitimate?
The next question is about the next bone of contention – the plea bargain. It needs to be clarified in the very beginning, though, that this is not an ingrown mechanism, and has been borrowed from the American criminal justice system. It is applicable in many countries of the world and very successfully on that. However, do plea bargains legitimise the illegitimate?
The allegation against NAB remains that with its advertisements of voluntary return scheme it invited the criminals to get away with their corruption
The official NAB website says, and it is quoted:
“There is a misconception about the ‘Plea-Bargain’. The concept has been borrowed from the American Criminal Practice Code where Attorney General is vested with discretion of prosecution and even dropping of charge/charges. However with reference to NAO, the Plea Bargain option is exercised by the accused at his own accord. It is a plea of guilty in exchange for lesser punishment. Such a person is disqualified from holding public office and obtaining loan from bank. Being deemed to be guilty only sentence of imprisonment is waived. The allegation of discrimination while deciding plea bargain amount is not true also as this matter is decided by plea bargain committees comprising of banking and legal experts.”
Hence, plea bargains are not as sinister as they seem. If this is not applicable, the corrupt will do whatever in their capacity in order to escape the harsh punishments they would otherwise get. So it is a safer way to bring the black money and transform it into white money.
However, with a case as blatant and as offensive as Raisani, who was posted as the finance secretary of a not-so-privileged province of the country, it hardly makes sense to let go of the culprit on plea bargain. It needs to be borne in perspective that people guilty of much lesser crimes rot in jail cells, whereas someone looting the country’ money with such temerity and in such magnitude walks a free man.
It is not a just world, so it seems.
What did the Supreme Court exactly say?
These discrepancies did not escape the vigilant eyes of the judiciary, and Supreme Court talked about NAB as facilitating corruption in the country. This being said it also asked whether NAB has the same powers as the anti-corruption wing of FIA or not?
Moreover, the Supreme Court asked two other pertinent questions
- Is NAB a recovery officer?
- How does an officer accused of such massive corruption remain in power?
If we look at question number two, and the dynamics of plea bargain, it is stated on NAB’s official website that anyone guilty of corruption cannot hold public office. So, if any officers caught by NAB, are still serving, it is really a sad story.
Moreover, the allegation against NAB remains that with its advertisements of voluntary return scheme it invited the criminals to get away with their corruption.
The road ahead…
Well, it is bumpy, twitchy, nervous, hard…
But it can lead to a desired end, across the board accountability by an independent and impartial watchdog. How should it be done? There are certain measures that need to be taken.
Firstly, an amount should be set on which plea bargain is granted. This would be an upper cap. Any cases like that of Raisani should not have the option of plea bargain. Secondly, NAB should be made more efficient. It should not be making such errors as confusing between Rs40 billion and Rs2 billion. Thirdly, the accountability drive should be across the board and not limited to opposition parties. Fourth, there should be an internal accountability drive for the officers of NAB. Even they should be accountable. And last but not the least, any appointments of key positions should be transparent and in accordance with the available statutes.
David Brinn says:
“When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.”
Let’s hope Pakistan dares to be different.