NAB's questionable practice

The National Accountably Bureau's (NAB's) practice of arresting suspects first and looking for evidence later came into question during a hearing by a Supreme Court bench of a bail application moved by a private citizen accused of fraud. Raising a common concern Justice Mushir Alam asked, "Why can't NAB first complete a reference after the collection of evidence and then take the accused into custody?" Although the court disposed of this particular case after the accused withdrew his bail application, there was no satisfactory answer to that important question. NAB's special prosecutor could only offer the usual explanation that the anti-graft watchdog always took the accused into custody to prevent any attempt by them to tamper with case records.

There are several cases in which suspects, mostly out of power political personages, have been detained and jailed for long periods yet NAB has failed to prove any wrongdoing against them. There is the high profile case of former Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif, accused of abusing his authority in the Ashiyana-i-Iqbal Housing scheme. Last month, NAB withdrew the case after failing to prove the allegation before the apex court. In that instance Sharif was still chief minister when the case was brought against him and hence, perhaps, could have tampered with the record. But then there are other examples in which people were arrested when they no longer were in positions of power that they could use to influence investigations, like the case of former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi who remains behind bars for nearly six months for alleged wrongdoing in an LNG import contract. His finance minister, Miftah Ismail, accused in a related case, was released on bail only last month after prolonged incarceration. NAB has still to come up with evidence against them that can stand scrutiny in a court of law. This dubious policy not only causes physical distress to suspects but also sullies their names unfairly.

NAB has felt free to name and shame people without proof of any misconduct because of a provision in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, introduced by a military ruler to punish unmanageable opponents. When last month the PTI government amended that law through a new ordinance, it should have stopped NAB from exercising an unfettered and arbitrary power to arrest people, making it mandatory for it to conduct a proper investigation into a corruption case and then file a reference in a court of law. NAB officials have been barred from issuing public statements before filing references, which is a welcome change since public statements of unproven guilt amplified by media coverage is a violation of basic rights. But the new law is silent on arrest before investigation. Only the remand period has been reduced from 90 day to 14 days. The opposition is not wrong, therefore, when it says the government has had no intentions to stop the abuse of the accountability law. The government would be wise to address this very valid criticism.