The task of accountability is an unenviable one in the best of circumstances. In an environment of endemic corruption it attains nightmarish proportions. Everyday one comes across issues of investigating, arresting and prosecuting individuals.
The most tricky part is viewing these individuals as human beings contributing to various sectors in the country and not just names on a file.
Law has to take its course but not without due deliberation and maximum safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
NAB has to look at things from a broader perspective within the confines of law and not through a lynch mindset.
We try our best but sometimes the best of systems fail. It is significant that such failures are not frequent, are minimised over time and in the few cases where it happens law provides for remedial action.
The humane aspect has to be balanced with making an impact against corruption - the latter being the primary goal of NAB. If the goal can be achieved without coercive action the job would be ideal.
Unfortunately combating corruption without strict enforcement of law is a redundant option.
That harsh measures themselves cannot redeem the situation is equally true and therefore a parallel education and prevention exercise is essential.
The three pronged approach is also a recognition of the fact that no single agency can combat corruption alone. It requires support from other institutions and the public.
National Accountability Bureau was set up to undertake its huge mandate of combating corruption through across the board accountability and recovery of looted wealth of the nation.
NAB's ground breaking effort immediately attracted attention of the public desperately desirous of ridding the country of corruption.
Expectations were raised and the Bureau came, and continues to remain, under media focus. Resultantly almost everyone has an opinion on NAB.
These opinions vary from those who think the law and methods of NAB are too harsh to those who believe that NAB is soft on the corrupt and is moving very slowly.
Other perceptions on political biases and 'deal making' also abound. These perceptions themselves are based on isolated (and unfortunate) personal experiences, incomplete truths and at times outright myths.
An understanding of our operational methodology will quell a lot of apprehensions.
The methodology is geared around providing opportunity to the accused and attempting to avoid a media trial.
The organisation is complaint driven, despite the powers of taking suo moto action, and spurs into action once a complaint fits into its criteria.
Initial action is taken in the form of a probe. Conceptually a probe is a discreet inquiry to ascertain the authenticity of the complaint and its admissibility.
Extreme care is taken that the matter does not become public. Once a probe indicates a cause for moving further an inquiry is authorised.
This is an intrusive operation to collect all possible evidence. An inquiry can end in any one of the three possibilities; closure, investigation and voluntary return. Once enough evidence is unearthed an inquiry is converted into an investigation.
The investigation allows the investigator to organise evidence for presentation in the court. An investigation also has three possibilities; reference filing or prosecution, closure and plea bargain. It is at the investigation stage that a person becomes liable to arrest. Investigations not converted into prosecution are closed in a court of law.
The most controversial issues have been voluntary return and plea bargain. Both these concepts are much misunderstood mainly because NAB has not made a real effort to explain it to everyone. Both these instruments are safety valves in the face of huge number of complaints received in NAB and the potential work given endemic corruption in the country during the period under its purview.
The option to utilise voluntary return or plea bargain is the prerogative of the accused and accepting it is the discretion of NAB. However, in the case of plea bargain the matter is finalised in a court of law.
Contrary to the general belief the amount of money paid is not determined by the accused but NAB after a thorough investigation.
Acceptance of plea bargain or voluntary return does not provide a cover to the accused against future investigations provided new evidence appears.
In case of plea bargain the accused is deemed to be convicted with entailment of all restrictions of a convict except imprisonment.
In case of voluntary return the conviction provision does not operate.
That is why it can be availed in the earlier stages of the process and not after an investigation has been authorised.
Both these options are realistic management tools and other countries have also used similar and at times more lenient provisions to ensure that the effort does not remain trapped in the past.
South Africa has a Truth and Reconciliation and a number of other countries started fresh anti-corruption efforts with amnesty for past deeds.
Some extreme cases were made exceptions in all such policies. NAB has not provided an outright amnesty.
There are consequences of a plea bargain, the minimum being return of wealth. The question that has to be addressed is whether similar treatment should be allowed to current corruption?
All major decisions from authorisation of inquiry, investigation, reference signing, arrest, plea bargain, and voluntary return are undertaken in a committee and not by a single person.
With the introduction of video conferencing the number of participants of such meetings has increased and all persons involved in the investigation are present along with the prosecutors and other decision makers.
Each case is discussed threadbare and only when evidence is considered substantive is the reference signed.
The accused even before an investigation is authorised is provided with ample opportunity to forward his point of view to the investigation officer concerned or any other senior officer that he or she may want to see.
The Chairman himself is available to the accused and his or her family members. It is significant that there is absolutely no concept of second or third degree methods.
The accused is treated with respect although the harassment felt by him or her on being quizzed is simply unavoidable.
Even after taking all these precautions there remains a possibility of error and it is here that the law provides for withdrawal of case by the Chairman after a reference has been signed.
In exceptional cases the discretion has been exercised after appearance of fresh evidence. No case against any sitting minister or politically important person under prosecution has been withdrawn to date. These cases continue to be pursued in courts.
No system is perfect and therefore a perpetual review is undertaken in the Bureau. However, NAB has to operate within the four corners of the legal framework and implement the law given to it in the best possible manner.
National Accountability Ordinance is quite a comprehensive law and keeping in view the fact that it was drafted in a short time it is commendable that it took cognisance of so many critical issues.
However, like all laws it is not the last word in wisdom and with experience and hindsight it is possible to analyse some of the shortcomings. It is not my forte as executor to comment on legislative issues but at times one feels that the requirement to go as far back as 1985 did create managerial hurdles.
The huge backlog makes it difficult to concentrate on current corruption although we are devising strategies to ensure action against current corruption in addition to the past. I used the term 'safety valve' for plea bargain. Had it not been for this provision the progress of the Bureau would have been much slower and the impact much less significant in view of the huge backlog and the complications involved in pursing a case right up to the highest court.
Man hours and costs on investigation are saved, government gets some money while a corrupt person is more or less permanently taken out of the system.
A shortcoming of the law was the absence of prevention and awareness functions. These were added in 2002 on NAB's own recommendation prepared through the National Anti-corruption Strategy.
It is here that I would want to emphasise the point made earlier that NAB alone cannot combat corruption.
Diagnosis of the causes of endemic corruption reveal that the latter is the symptom of poor governance and not its cause.
When complicated laws, intrusive state structures and weak accountability are combined corruption prevails.
Low pays, inadequate operational expenses and unreasonable service conditions add to the problem.
Society's acceptance of the phenomenon whether due to despondency or indifference hammers the final nail in the coffin.
It is with this in view that NAB prepared the National Anti-corruption Strategy that proposes to invigorate other agencies and society to play their role to allow NAB to undertake a more manageable task.
Abdication of anti-corruption role by all government organisations cannot continue indefinitely.
Systems have to be changed or revitalised. Procedures with high risks of corruption need review and internal accountability mechanisms need to be revived.
May be the government has to review the entire civil services structure with a futuristic perspective of developing an enlightened bureaucracy that is enterprising and enjoys high levels of probity; a bureaucracy that can play a pivotal role in development of a country.
Parliamentary traditions need to be strengthened and the entire society has to develop a more optimistic view in the struggle against corruption;
A start has to be made and the most critical factor is political will. Fears of socio economic backlash and the general comfort with the status quo would have to be given up. 'Political Will' is a sin qua non for any effective governance reform including anti-corruption.
Unpalatable decisions have to be taken in both the enforcement and preventive side. While on enforcement NAB is fortunate to have adequate autonomy it is in the preventive model that more support from the government specifically and society in general is critical.
Contrary to general myth clean governments attract investment and therefore the propaganda of loss of investment is misleading.
In the transitional phase there is a possibility of some loss of investment (though this can be avoided) but there are definite long term benefits with the business community being the biggest beneficiary.
Not only would more serious long term investment be attracted but even businesses surviving or thriving because of the current environment would happily change their ways once a transparent and efficient public service is established.
Today the small city states of Singapore and Hong Kong attract huge amounts of foreign investment due to near absence of corruption and resultant reduction of financial costs and predictability for businesses.
Like all reforms anticorruption effort cannot undo the past no matter how desirable. It must improve the future.
Results do not emerge in a day. Provided a comprehensive effort is initiated and the commitment continues it will take a generation but signs of improvement can appear much earlier. The effort must include the government machinery, NAB and society at large.
Time may be running out for us. Globalisation is inevitable. It will provide opportunities as well as challenges. Pakistan has to prepare itself to reap the maximum benefits from the fast changing world.
Our ability to attract foreign investment and develop is heavily dependent on a corruption free government and a society that has a sound moral ethos.
The issue needs more serious attention. The more the people joining us the greater would be the chances of our success.
We are open to ideas and criticism. NAB's efforts to combat corruption will continue unabated.
Even as we move forward we are careful not to unnecessarily upset the applicant as the vision of NAB is focused on a cleaner future for Pakistan and not any particular group or person.
Comments
Comments are closed.