THE Supreme Court, on Tuesday, questioned the modus operandi of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to arrest accused/suspects during investigations. Hearing the bail application of one Faisal Kamran Qureshi, a three member bench of the apex court observed that the anti-graft body first arrested the accused, put him behind the bar and then started the investigation, searching out for the evidence and testimonies, wondering why investigation is not completed before arrest.
This is not the only case of searching for evidence after apprehending the accused as there are numerous other instances of similar methodology adopted by the Bureau. NAB has its own logic of doing so – departments and organizations concerned tend not to cooperate if influential accused are roaming freely and that the Bureau always took the accused into custody to prevent any attempt by the accused to tamper with the records. However, the argument is not convincing as it substantiates the complaints that people are arrested first and then evidence against them is searched. It is mainly because of this that the entire accountability process is losing its credibility and there is an impression of injustice being done to suspects. There are many cases where NAB arrested the accused but failed to establish a case and then the same persons were apprehended on some other allegation. Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah too had observed in November last year that the powers to arrest provided under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 were neither unfettered nor could they be exercised mechanically and in an arbitrary manner. Similarly, the courts have also been questioning the practice of plea bargain which amounts to giving clean chit to a crime. These issues need to be considered seriously and addressed satisfactory for the sake of credibility of the accountability process.
