Who will sign the files?

Recently Mr Suleman Ghani, a 70-year-old reputable retired civil servant, was arrested by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), allegedly for not objecting to a mining contract years ago. Mr Ghani as Chairman P&D was an ex-officio member of the board of Punjab Mineral Development Corporation. His grounds for arrest state that he did not raise any objection to the decision to hold negotiations with a private firm for signing a joint venture mining agreement.

Any civil servant could potentially make a mistake, an error of judgement or cause an inadvertent loss to the exchequer, yet it does not constitute a crime unless he had done that with criminal intent and directly or indirectly benefited from it.

But there have been several cases in the recent past where corruption allegations were investigated against bureaucrats for causing a loss to the government through one of their decisions, without any regard for their intent. However, Mr Ghani’s case has pushed this frontier even further. Someone like the Chairman P&D sits on umpteen boards and attends scores of board meetings every week. The allegation that he did not object to a certain decision of one of the provincial government corporations during one of the meetings that happened more than a decade ago is absolutely frivolous. Even more interestingly no loss to the exchequer ever happened, as the agreement was subsequently cancelled by the government. And reportedly Mr Ghani did not even personally attend the said meeting.

The way Mr Ghani’s case unfolded is a classic example of how accountability shouldn’t happen. This precedent essentially means that it becomes fair game to question virtually any act of a bureaucrat or even his silence. In almost every case, one could argue some loss to the government that hypothetically happened or could have happened. A contract could always be negotiated at a lower price; a public project might not be considered necessary and would thus constitute wastage of government resources, or a particular regulation would always benefit a specific segment that could invite allegations of nepotism.

Unfortunately, these are the decisions that a bureaucrat has to take every day. If the absence of criminal intent is ignored, it becomes very easy to allege corruption. And as soon as someone is alleged to be corrupt and arrested, his media trial is quickly commenced and concluded, even before a reference is filed against him. And that’s exactly what has been happening.

But such overzealous accountability has a cost. The wheel of government is grinding to a halt. Politicians are complaining that the bureaucracy has stopped working. The files that used to take weeks to get approved now keep moving up and down the government corridors for months, without a decision. No one wants to sign a file or else he might create yet another reason to get nabbed.

Who in these times would then be willing to take a personal risk and sign off on contract awards, commercial agreements or payments? Apart from a few exceptions, it’s mostly going to be those who have a personal stake in the issue and have something to gain. These are exactly the kind of people who we need to discourage and prevent from decision making but little do we realise that reckless and indiscreet accountability is doing the exact opposite.

With Suleman Ghani’s case out there, even those honest bureaucrats who have so far been sticking their necks out would get scared and those who were already scared would start exploring alternative career options, creating all the more space for those who have mastered the skill of sailing through these murky waters for the right price. The present accountability drive may continue but at some point, the government would need to think about who will ultimately sign the files.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 15^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.