IN the backdrop of widely-held belief and perception that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has started intervening in each and everything under the sun, the Government moved on Friday to clip its powers significantly through wide-ranging amendments in the accountability law. Under the ordinance, promulgated by the President, businessmen have been excluded from the ambit of the Bureau and all tax-related inquiries/investigations would stand transferred to respective authorities/departments; more protection has been provided to members of Parliament and civil servants and amendments of far-reaching importance introduced in trial procedure.
No one would deny that the very existence and effective role of the accountability watch-dog were crucial for moving towards the goal of a corruption-free society. Corruption has assumed alarming proportions, hindering progress and development of the country, and therefore, accountability of the corrupt in a fair and transparent manner is the need of the hour. However, there are complaints from almost all segments of the society that the NAB was overstepping from its mandate because of loopholes in the relevant law. It was widely believed that unprecedented activism of the Bureau was hindering decision-making process in bureaucracy and no one was now ready to take any bold initiative for fear of being nabbed at any stage and moment in future. Similarly, traders too had their own grievances against NAB and they even approached Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa in view of gravity of the situation. Prime Minister Imran Khan has rightly pointed out that NAB was acting like a parallel judicial system in the country and taking cognizance of even those cases that fall in the jurisdiction of other forums like taxation regulatory bodies with serious implications for running of the system.
In this backdrop, barring some aspects, the amendments introduced by the Government to streamline the accountability process would have salutary effect on the overall environment. Traders would now have no fear of the Bureau as their cases, like before, would be heard by criminal courts and this would surely help provide conducive economic environment instead of an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Bureaucrats too have to take decisions on the basis of ground realities and they should not be made accountable if something goes wrong even if such a decision was made in good faith. In a welcome development, NAB remand period has been slashed from existing 90 days to just 14 days and the accused would be entitled to bail if anti-graft body fails to complete investigations within 90 days. This is important in view of the fact that presently many a leaders and bureaucrats were apprehended without first obtaining necessary evidence and they were kept in jail for months without any meaningful progress in investigations. The amendment would hopefully force the Bureau to gather necessary material before arresting an accused and this would also enable the court to make a prompt and fact-based decision about grant of bail or otherwise. There were also serious complaints that the power to reopen investigations or inquiries were being used to harass or victimize individuals and, in fact, there are instances where inquiries closed years back after thorough investigations were reopened for questionable reasons.
Under the amendment, an inquiry or investigation once closed cannot be reopened and this would come as a relief to many persons. NAB had also started taking cognizance of cases involving small amounts and therefore, the decision to increase the monetary limit from Rs. 50 to Rs. 500 million for the purpose is understandable. This would also help NAB save its time, resources and energy for use against major cases of corruption. The ordinance has taken care of another grievance by envisaging that NAB would not seize property of government officials without the court orders. However, the proviso that for filing reference approval of President and respective Governors would be needed might have political connotations. On the face of it, there seems to be no harm in seeking approval of the President or a Governor as they are supposed to be neutral figures but in our setup they mostly and practically act as watchdogs of party interests and might make decisions on political considerations. The Opposition is also complaining that amendments have been introduced to shield relevant people in BRT case and this issue needs to be addressed in a transparent manner for the sake of government’s own image and reputation. It is also regrettable that instead of using the right forum of Parliament for enacting laws, the Government has once again used the option of issuing an ordinance. There should have been proper debate in Parliament before finalizing such critical amendments.
