Missed chances: PML-N, PPP could have amended accountability law
As they wage their anti-government protest campaign, the country’s two main opposition party have also targeted the National Accountability Bureau for much criticism.
But in the recent past, both the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Pakistan Peoples Party missed several chances to amend the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
The PML-N, in particular, had prepared a draft of amendments to the NAO when it held the government. But before that effort could see fruition, it fell victim to fallout from the Panama Papers and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s refusal to support any change in the ordinance.
Curiously, the PPP too started delaying that bid even though it was believed to have seen eye-to-eye with the PML-N on the matter. "I think both (PTI and PPP) parties were acting under influence of the security establishment at the time. They were not interested any kind of cooperation with the PML-N regime," a senior PML-N lawyer told The Express Tribune.
After PTI came in to power, PPP Senator Farooq H Naek tabled a different bill in the upper house to amend the NAO. But although that bill had the blessing of the Senate panel on law and justice, the PML-N chose not to support it and sought to push its own set of proposals.
PML-N lawmakers shared those proposals during discussions over legislation pertaining to FATF compliance. The PTI, however, refused to accept them as Prime Minister Imran Khan termed them a bid to obtain another ‘National Reconciliation Ordinance’ (NRO).
“I believe Premier Imran will not take any step that could effect his mandate,” a senior government functionary said with reference to the episode. That mandate, he said, rests on the PTI promise to eradicate corruption and put the ‘elite’ responsible behind bars.
Speaking over the issue, a senior PPP leader lamented the PML-N decision at the time. “They should have supported Naek’s bill, which was more rational,” he said. “That the government would not accept the PML-N proposals was something we all foresaw.”
Naek’s proposal sought to abolish NAB’s power to arrest any individual at the stage of inquiry or investigation. Arguing that they had been misused to coerce individuals into giving certain statements, his NAB Amendments Bill 2019 recommended removing sections 24(d) and (e).
“This provision is being misused to deny liberty to respectable citizens and exert undue pressure to extract statements favourable to the prosecution regardless of the truth,” the bill reads. “There is no need for the custodial investigation as investigation can be carried out and a person can be questioned in the NAB office without being detained overnight.”
The PPP legal wizard also recommended restricting NAB investigations to a mandatory six-month period to discourage the accountability watchdog from ‘prolonging matters without substance or evidence’. He argued that this kept with the spirit of article 37 of the constitution, which makes it binding on the state to provide ‘expeditious justice’.
Naek’s bill also proposed restricting NAB jurisdiction by amending section 5(n). It stated that NAB should only be allowed to investigate/prosecute cases that concern amounts larger than Rs500 million since every province has an anti-corruption department and anti-corruption courts to deal with offences outside the ambit of mega corruption.
The bill also seeks to amend NAO section 9(a)(v), which deals with the offence of holding pecuniary resources disproportionate to known sources of income. It proposes restricting prosecution of this offence to only those cases where a holder of public office has assets that are the outcome of ‘corrupt, dishonest and illegal means’.
Naek’s reasoning was based on the size of Pakistan’s non-documentary economy, which has led to property transactions being registered at rates not commensurate with actual market values. He argued that due to this, many people who might not be readily able to explain discrepancies in their assets even though they have not profited from ‘corruption’.
The amendment in question, if passed, would place the onus on NAB to prove that the assets of a holder of public office are the outcome of illegal means. Only then would the watchdog be able to prosecute that individual.
The PPP senator also recommended restricting NAB officials from issuing public statements during investigations. His bill also sought to delete section 9(b) to empower the NAB court to grant bail to suspects. At present, section 9(b) makes all offences under NAO 1999 non-bailable.
The bill also recommended omission of section 25(a), which provides for a voluntary return of funds in exchange for discharge of an accused. Naek argues that without the court’s permission, such a provision was not consonant with article 175(3) of the constitution.
Another amendment proposed in the bill seeks to allow a provision for plea-bargaining during inquiry. It also seeks ensure that an individual who voluntarily repays alleged proceeds of corruption is not punished with imprisonment and is only disqualified from holding public office for five years, not 10.
The PPP senator also sought the omission of section 24(f), which empowers the NAB chief to declare any place as a sub-jail.