- NAB Law reforms without the opposition
Every government makes reforms in the criminal law. Changes are often enough made by an omnibus bill, in which amendments are made to a number of laws. This is especially needed where a change of the Pakistan Penal Code also needs a change to one schedule in the Criminal Procedure Code and another in the Limitations Act. It is also true that a reforming government like that of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf could not carry out its mandate without criminal law reforms. It had never made clear exactly what reforms it intended to bring about, but it had also made it clear that it was not one of those parties which felt that there was need for efficient implementation of the law rather than fresh legislation.
However, the law reforms announced on Saturday by Law Minister Farogh Naseem with so much fanfare will be implemented through the promulgation of an ordinance. The superior courts had already closed that backdoor used by lazy law ministries, both federal and provincial, in which the executive legislated, and then introduced that supposed temporary statute to the legislature as a sort of fait accompli. A federal ordinance can be promulgated for six months, a provincial for four; the technique is to have re-promulgation take place as soon as expiry. The government could avoid this constitutionally dubious procedure by striking a deal with the Senate opposition so as to get legislation through that House. A party gains office through a majority in the National Assembly, but it has happened before that it has found itself in a minority in the Senate, and thus in need of the co-operation, indeed help, of the opposition, in carrying out legislation.
However, this government, which apparently considers itself purer than driven snow, would rather put itself on a path of constitutional impropriety than discuss criminal law reform with the opposition. The current reforms package also includes changes to the NAB law. The opposition, which has seen a numerous array of stalwarts fall foul of the accountability watchdog, would have had something to say on the subject, and might have proposed a number of amendments born of bitter experience. However, no one asked. While this might have kept the government pristine, it prevented it building a much-needed consensus.
