Blunting NAB's edge

The recovery of Rs 71 billion - directly or indirectly - constitutes a significant feat. The NAB chief therefore rightly derives pleasure from his organisation's achievement. But not many do not look at it favourably, arguing that accountability by NAB is one-sided. Not only has it smothered good governance, it has also stampeded economic growth and sacrificed legal neutrality at the altar of persona partiality. However, the accountability czar argues that everything is being done as mandated by the NAB Ordinance, and if someone wants it to work differently then he should have it amended. That kind of amendment, previously demanded by the political opposition and now by the government is now under discussion. Of the numerous inputs being proposed to amend the NAB law most elaborate is a draft prepared by the federal secretaries. To them, the decision-making at the higher levels of bureaucracy is almost at standstill, if not lethargic. They say what may now appear to be correct and ripe for decision may turn out to be wrong over the time, and the NAB may treat it as intentional oversight, earning the wrath of accountability. Remember, Brig Asad Munir (retd) committed suicide just because he didn't want to be seen on media wearing handcuffs for a decision he took in good conscience.

The top bureaucrats say the decisions by them were often treated or described as "criminal acts." Their draft, to be presented to the prime minister, has suggested a number of amendments. According to them, the NAB should deal only with over Rs 50 million corruption cases; cut 90-day remand to 14 days; not the NAB chairman but the president should appoint bureau's prosecutor general; remove NAB authority to summon government servants; high courts should resolve appeals against accountability courts' verdicts within 10 days instead of 30 days; and restrain the NAB from carrying out media coverage until reference is filed against the accused. Also, most importantly, the secretaries want there should be a "scrutiny committee", without whose proposal the NAB should not take any action against a bureaucrat. One can only surmise in response to a question how the government will react to this draft. Take the case of recent bureaucratic reshuffle in Punjab. With NAB keeping watch, there is little hope the Nawaz-Shahbaz vintage bureaucrats will perform better than the ones now consigned to long grass. And, nurtured in bureaucratic culture as ours no officer would agree that he has been transferred just because he was incompetent; it is all politics, he would insist.

Unless there is an elaboration to the NAB chief's "change of wind" the impression obtains that the bureau is now going to probe corruption involving the ruling elite. Be that so, but that would be too late in the day. By now, the NAB has lost its veneer of impartiality. Such a move would be seen as face-saving and a balancing act. It's just possible that the "change of wind" may trigger some action on federal secretaries' draft. But that wouldn't be enough - the NAB Ordinance is a bad law, it should be removed from the statute book. It offends the basic norm of jurisprudence that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Here, the NAB detains first then secures evidence. Corruption, of all types, is a crime which aptly attracts action under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). What the NAB carries out as its mandate the ordinary courts have been doing for centuries. If at all any amendment is required it should be to the PPC, mainly by expanding definition of corruption in its relevant sections.