Does Pakistan need present accountability regime?
At present, our anti-corruption regime is reactive and not preventive
The writer is a barrister-at-law and former advocate general of Sindh. The views expressed here are his own. He tweets @zamirghumro
The purpose of any anti-corruption regime in a country is to foster a just society by taking action against few and protecting many. It’s based on preventive doctrine. Every state envisions a policy where there should be few and far between loopholes in the system to be exploited by the unscrupulous elements. An anti-corruption regime is never aimed at criminalising the whole lot of rank and file of bureaucracy, politics, business and other segments of society.
The bedrock of any anti-corruption regime is to prevent corruption rather than creating awe and fear and degrading or dehumanising society. That’s why states take preventive measures to make the governmental process transparent and open so that government officials may not get involved in corruption. A government ensures to create a corruption-free environment for not only society but for bureaucracy and businesses too. Arresting a citizen for crime should be the last resort. The government is bound to produce good citizens for society and not criminals. People indulge in crimes due to weak systems and procedures of government.
At present, our anti-corruption regime is reactive and not preventive. The purpose is to allow corruption and then nab officials after many years when they are on the wrong side of the political divide.
General Mushraff enacted the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of October 14, 1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order No1 of 1999 (both declared illegal and unlawful under the 18th Amendment) in order to recover looted money to fix the economy and prevent corruption. In almost the last 20 years, neither the economy could be fixed nor has corruption been eliminated because it has never been the aim of accountability processes the world over to fix the economy.
The purpose of an anti-corruption regime is to serve deterrent against corruption and provide just and fair opportunities for governance in order to promote business and the economy. It serves as a supportive element in the overall scheme and never takes centre stage.
The government eliminates the chances of corruption by making their own processes of appointments, contracts, tax recovery, transfers and postings, quotas, allotments, acquisitions more transparent and accessible to common citizens. With transparent and open government, the chances of corruption automatically become bleak as contracts are given on merit, appointments, allotments and other processes of government are made transparent, open and in accordance with law.
The preventive approach to make the governmental process transparent and open paves the way for a graft- less society, where an anti-corruption regime then deals with few unscrupulous elements. The government should not be the breeding ground for corrupt criminals because this damages society and administration when citizens indulge in corruption. This means our policy is churning out a population of the corrupt and criminals. Whole families suffer because of the act of individuals which governments encourage by not making their own processes and working open and transparent.
No doubt, governments make many omissions and commissions during the process of policymaking or execution and every commission or omission of government is not an offence under the law. Government conceives a policy or executes a scheme which subsequently fails. It doesn’t mean that it committed the offence of corruption under the law.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has constantly held from 2011 that even misuse of authority in itself is not an offence if it’s not connected with a financial gain but National Accountability Bureau officials have even filed references where employees have been regularised by the orders of courts or where allotment of land was cancelled and land retrieved to the government without an allegation of financial gain.
This centre stage role of NAB and law and order approach to the economy have taken the country by wind where the civilian administration and police are averse to perform, investors are reluctant to invest and businesses are afraid of performing. This law and order approach to the economy has resulted in the flight of capital and brains and the country is again in severe economic crisis. Even the word accountability is abhorred in civilised societies. It’s replaced with anti-graft or softer terms so that society may not remain in awe and fear.
Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah has said that the administration in Sindh is not performing for the fear of NAB. Such a statement by the chief executive of a province speaks volumes about the fundamental defect in our anti-corruption approach.
Democratic governments rule by moral authority with least interference in businesses and the economy. Any interference is for the purpose of promoting the interests of the economy and businesses. The less the government, the better the economy and business.
The federal government and three provinces, excluding Balochistan, have enacted elaborate Right to Information Acts to make the government more responsible, transparent and open and all ministries are bound to have their information of budget, contracts, schemes and jobs on their websites which citizens and journalists can access. NAB is already empowered under the law to examine all contracts above Rs50 million.
If the government through the Right of Information Acts and other steps is able to make its system transparent, there would be few cases of corruption. NAB shouldn’t take up cases of error of judgment, maladministration and misuse of authority as cases of corruption. These acts are at best cases of judicial review or departmental action.
Even otherwise, we have host of other checks on corruption in the form of provincial anti-corruption set-ups, the FIA, public accounts committees, ombudsmen, inspection teams, auditor general of Pakistan, etc, to check corruption and maladministration but the preventive approach is lacking.
It’s crystal clear that only a preventive and holistic approach can curb corruption. Nab the corrupt act before it’s committed in order to save people from being jailed for it, which have serious consequences for families and society. By not putting in place a preventing regime of corruption, we are promoting it rather than eradicating the same.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2018.
The bedrock of any anti-corruption regime is to prevent corruption rather than creating awe and fear and degrading or dehumanising society. That’s why states take preventive measures to make the governmental process transparent and open so that government officials may not get involved in corruption. A government ensures to create a corruption-free environment for not only society but for bureaucracy and businesses too. Arresting a citizen for crime should be the last resort. The government is bound to produce good citizens for society and not criminals. People indulge in crimes due to weak systems and procedures of government.
At present, our anti-corruption regime is reactive and not preventive. The purpose is to allow corruption and then nab officials after many years when they are on the wrong side of the political divide.
General Mushraff enacted the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency of October 14, 1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order No1 of 1999 (both declared illegal and unlawful under the 18th Amendment) in order to recover looted money to fix the economy and prevent corruption. In almost the last 20 years, neither the economy could be fixed nor has corruption been eliminated because it has never been the aim of accountability processes the world over to fix the economy.
The purpose of an anti-corruption regime is to serve deterrent against corruption and provide just and fair opportunities for governance in order to promote business and the economy. It serves as a supportive element in the overall scheme and never takes centre stage.
The government eliminates the chances of corruption by making their own processes of appointments, contracts, tax recovery, transfers and postings, quotas, allotments, acquisitions more transparent and accessible to common citizens. With transparent and open government, the chances of corruption automatically become bleak as contracts are given on merit, appointments, allotments and other processes of government are made transparent, open and in accordance with law.
The preventive approach to make the governmental process transparent and open paves the way for a graft- less society, where an anti-corruption regime then deals with few unscrupulous elements. The government should not be the breeding ground for corrupt criminals because this damages society and administration when citizens indulge in corruption. This means our policy is churning out a population of the corrupt and criminals. Whole families suffer because of the act of individuals which governments encourage by not making their own processes and working open and transparent.
No doubt, governments make many omissions and commissions during the process of policymaking or execution and every commission or omission of government is not an offence under the law. Government conceives a policy or executes a scheme which subsequently fails. It doesn’t mean that it committed the offence of corruption under the law.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has constantly held from 2011 that even misuse of authority in itself is not an offence if it’s not connected with a financial gain but National Accountability Bureau officials have even filed references where employees have been regularised by the orders of courts or where allotment of land was cancelled and land retrieved to the government without an allegation of financial gain.
This centre stage role of NAB and law and order approach to the economy have taken the country by wind where the civilian administration and police are averse to perform, investors are reluctant to invest and businesses are afraid of performing. This law and order approach to the economy has resulted in the flight of capital and brains and the country is again in severe economic crisis. Even the word accountability is abhorred in civilised societies. It’s replaced with anti-graft or softer terms so that society may not remain in awe and fear.
Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah has said that the administration in Sindh is not performing for the fear of NAB. Such a statement by the chief executive of a province speaks volumes about the fundamental defect in our anti-corruption approach.
Democratic governments rule by moral authority with least interference in businesses and the economy. Any interference is for the purpose of promoting the interests of the economy and businesses. The less the government, the better the economy and business.
The federal government and three provinces, excluding Balochistan, have enacted elaborate Right to Information Acts to make the government more responsible, transparent and open and all ministries are bound to have their information of budget, contracts, schemes and jobs on their websites which citizens and journalists can access. NAB is already empowered under the law to examine all contracts above Rs50 million.
If the government through the Right of Information Acts and other steps is able to make its system transparent, there would be few cases of corruption. NAB shouldn’t take up cases of error of judgment, maladministration and misuse of authority as cases of corruption. These acts are at best cases of judicial review or departmental action.
Even otherwise, we have host of other checks on corruption in the form of provincial anti-corruption set-ups, the FIA, public accounts committees, ombudsmen, inspection teams, auditor general of Pakistan, etc, to check corruption and maladministration but the preventive approach is lacking.
It’s crystal clear that only a preventive and holistic approach can curb corruption. Nab the corrupt act before it’s committed in order to save people from being jailed for it, which have serious consequences for families and society. By not putting in place a preventing regime of corruption, we are promoting it rather than eradicating the same.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2018.