The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman, a former Supreme Court judge, has been claiming that his organisation has been operating within the bounds of the law and expects everyone to believe him. After all, why will a former SC judge even think of transgressing limits of the law, he seems to imply and has been impervious to any criticism.
But the harder Justice Javed Iqbal has sought to arouse public confidence, the more it has eluded him and criticism of his organization grows with the passage of each day.
Recently, the Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan and NEPRA publicly complained that their operations were adversely impacted by overenthusiastic NAB officials who had little knowledge of the complex nature of their working. NAB, however, was impervious to it.
Senior government officers avoid taking decisions because of fears of NAB’s interventions, resulting in huge economic and social losses. Sindh government officers are unwilling to sign contracts for garbage disposal in Karachi because they don’t want to be dragged in by NAB to answer questions why garbage was not sold to private contractors at a higher price.
Last month, while opening the new judicial year, the chief justice expressed fears about “lopsided process of accountability” describing it “dangerous” for the country. “We, as relevant organs of the state, also feel that growing perception that the process of accountability being pursued in the country at present is lopsided and is a part of political engineering is a dangerous perception and some remedial steps need to be taken urgently,” he said at the event that was shown live in all registries of the Supreme Court. NAB, however, remained impervious.
Last week, the NAB “arrested” already jailed Nawaz Sharif in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case. The defence counsel argued that the case related to his stint as Punjab chief minister and the JIT appointed by the Supreme Court had not recommended filing any reference but NAB insisted on securing remand which was granted. Many believe that it was aimed at placing the former PM under NAB custody, instead of jail, so as to disallow him from communicating with his party during the run up to Azadi march. But NAB remains impervious to such perceptions.
However, there is one exception when the NAB chairman has not been so impervious and responded in rather indecent haste. It was when businessmen met the army chief and complained of NAB’s excesses.
Promptly the former Supreme Court judge announced that NAB would no longer take up tax evasion and loan default cases and will leave it to the bodies responsible for taking up such issues. He also asked NAB officials not to summon businessmen for questioning.
It did not cross the mind of the chairman that the unseemly speed with which he retracted had cast long shadows on his and his organisation’s mandate, conduct and credibility. Always claiming that his organization operated in accordance with the law, there was no explanation what made him reinterpret the law after the businessmen met with the army chief. If questioning businessmen in tax evasion and bank default cases was within the scope of its responsibilities before, why abdicate it after the meeting? The unmistakable message was that the honourable former judge of SC thought that the law was what he said it was and that NAB overreached its mandate with impunity.
NAB has also been selective in choosing cases for investigation and prosecution, in the past as well as now. Whether headed by a bureaucrat, or a former admiral or a former general or as now by a former SC judge, it has acted as a coercive arm of the powers that be for political re-engineering. A latest example is that of the mass transit system in Peshawar which has long been delayed with several cost overruns. But NAB has remained impervious to any criticism on this score.
Clearly, there is a serious crisis of credibility of the accountability process. No matter what its chairman says or does now, unfortunately it will be hard to restore public trust. Two consequences must flow from it.
First, in the absence of credible explanation of somersaults and outreach, the NAB chairman should himself resign. Second, the NAB law must be debated in the Parliament and suitably changed.
The matters may not have been helped by the prime minister publicly declaring during his visit to China that he wished to follow the Chinese model and put “500 corrupt people in Pakistan in jail” or by a federal minister stating recently that the future of 220 million people would be secure if some 5,000 people were hanged. But such hyperbole should not be allowed to stand in the way of Parliament revisiting the law.
Accountability will also remain a farce unless it is across the board for all state functionaries in all state institutions, judges and generals included. The fallacy of the argument that some institutions have their own built-in accountability mechanisms should have become obvious by now. Everyone paid out of state exchequer must be subjected to a uniform accountability mechanism. If there are some concerns about independence of judiciary or national security, these can be addressed in the light of Johannesburg Principles enunciated quarter of a century ago and other internationally recognised best practices. After all, these principles have been relied upon in the Right to Information (RTI) law passed in 2017.
The writer served on the Parliamentary Committee on National Accountability Law.
But the harder Justice Javed Iqbal has sought to arouse public confidence, the more it has eluded him and criticism of his organization grows with the passage of each day.
Recently, the Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan and NEPRA publicly complained that their operations were adversely impacted by overenthusiastic NAB officials who had little knowledge of the complex nature of their working. NAB, however, was impervious to it.
Senior government officers avoid taking decisions because of fears of NAB’s interventions, resulting in huge economic and social losses. Sindh government officers are unwilling to sign contracts for garbage disposal in Karachi because they don’t want to be dragged in by NAB to answer questions why garbage was not sold to private contractors at a higher price.
Last month, while opening the new judicial year, the chief justice expressed fears about “lopsided process of accountability” describing it “dangerous” for the country. “We, as relevant organs of the state, also feel that growing perception that the process of accountability being pursued in the country at present is lopsided and is a part of political engineering is a dangerous perception and some remedial steps need to be taken urgently,” he said at the event that was shown live in all registries of the Supreme Court. NAB, however, remained impervious.
Last week, the NAB “arrested” already jailed Nawaz Sharif in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case. The defence counsel argued that the case related to his stint as Punjab chief minister and the JIT appointed by the Supreme Court had not recommended filing any reference but NAB insisted on securing remand which was granted. Many believe that it was aimed at placing the former PM under NAB custody, instead of jail, so as to disallow him from communicating with his party during the run up to Azadi march. But NAB remains impervious to such perceptions.
However, there is one exception when the NAB chairman has not been so impervious and responded in rather indecent haste. It was when businessmen met the army chief and complained of NAB’s excesses.
Promptly the former Supreme Court judge announced that NAB would no longer take up tax evasion and loan default cases and will leave it to the bodies responsible for taking up such issues. He also asked NAB officials not to summon businessmen for questioning.
It did not cross the mind of the chairman that the unseemly speed with which he retracted had cast long shadows on his and his organisation’s mandate, conduct and credibility. Always claiming that his organization operated in accordance with the law, there was no explanation what made him reinterpret the law after the businessmen met with the army chief. If questioning businessmen in tax evasion and bank default cases was within the scope of its responsibilities before, why abdicate it after the meeting? The unmistakable message was that the honourable former judge of SC thought that the law was what he said it was and that NAB overreached its mandate with impunity.
NAB has also been selective in choosing cases for investigation and prosecution, in the past as well as now. Whether headed by a bureaucrat, or a former admiral or a former general or as now by a former SC judge, it has acted as a coercive arm of the powers that be for political re-engineering. A latest example is that of the mass transit system in Peshawar which has long been delayed with several cost overruns. But NAB has remained impervious to any criticism on this score.
Clearly, there is a serious crisis of credibility of the accountability process. No matter what its chairman says or does now, unfortunately it will be hard to restore public trust. Two consequences must flow from it.
First, in the absence of credible explanation of somersaults and outreach, the NAB chairman should himself resign. Second, the NAB law must be debated in the Parliament and suitably changed.
The matters may not have been helped by the prime minister publicly declaring during his visit to China that he wished to follow the Chinese model and put “500 corrupt people in Pakistan in jail” or by a federal minister stating recently that the future of 220 million people would be secure if some 5,000 people were hanged. But such hyperbole should not be allowed to stand in the way of Parliament revisiting the law.
Accountability will also remain a farce unless it is across the board for all state functionaries in all state institutions, judges and generals included. The fallacy of the argument that some institutions have their own built-in accountability mechanisms should have become obvious by now. Everyone paid out of state exchequer must be subjected to a uniform accountability mechanism. If there are some concerns about independence of judiciary or national security, these can be addressed in the light of Johannesburg Principles enunciated quarter of a century ago and other internationally recognised best practices. After all, these principles have been relied upon in the Right to Information (RTI) law passed in 2017.
The writer served on the Parliamentary Committee on National Accountability Law.