Joint sitting casts aside president’s objections
The joint sitting of parliament on Thursday passed two key bills – amendments to the election as well as the accountability laws – and rejected all but one recommendation of President Arif Alvi.
The session passed the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the National Accountability (Amendment) Bill, 2022. These bills were passed by the National Assembly and the Senate earlier, but then the president did not give his assent and had returned them.
In the session, the members accused President Alvi of violating the Constitution, alleging that he worked as a worker of the former ruling party – the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) – rather than acting as the head of the state.
Though parliament clipped the vast powers of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the president’s only recommendation was about the joint session’s approval, pertaining to giving NAB chairman the power to declare and notify any place as a police station or sub-jail at his discretion.
The approval of only one amendment – Section 24 (f) –in NAB and election laws raised several eyebrows as political observers conjectured that it could be aimed at providing relief to the top-tier leadership of the political parties, facing NAB cases.
Also read: Govt plans to 'dodge' president for approval of Elections Amendment Bill
Following the passage of the bills, the lawmakers said that these bills would now be presented to the president once again for his assent and if he didn’t sign the bill within 10 days, it would be deemed that his assent had been given.
The session, while terming the president’s objections baseless, noted that Alvi and the previous PTI government didn’t take a single practical step that could enable the relevant institutions to move ahead with implementing the legislation that had now been reversed.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Murtaza Javed Abbasi, while rebutting the objections raised by the president, repeatedly accused Alvi of violating the Constitution “many times”. He said that the objections were “baseless and tantamount to putting the cart before the horse”.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarrar said that the president could only “request” for reconsideration but could not “order” parliament for amendments, stressing that legislation was not a prerogative of one person but of parliament that represented the masses.
Both Abbasi and Tarar rebutted Alvi’s recommendations, saying that it seemed that the president considered himself above the Constitution. They said that neither the overseas Pakistanis were deprived of their voting right nor would they be deprived of it in the future.
The ministers also said that the current ruling coalition was not against the electronic voting machines (EVMs), rather it only wanted to test the procedure before implementing the new technology based system in the country.
Also read: NA amends election laws to stop EVMs use
During the session, Tarar presented both the bills. Presenting the bills, he alleged that the president had returned them in order to cater to the whims of the political party that he was affiliated with.
The election amendment bill reversed the PTI-era legislation which had granted voting right to the overseas Pakistanis and made it compulsory to hold the elections through the EVMs, stating that pilot projects should determine the fate of both the proposals.
The statement of objectives of the bill stated that sections 94 and 103 of the Election Act, 2017 were amended for using i-voting and EVMs from next general elections but the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) faced technical difficulties in this regard.
The bill further stated that the ECP might conduct pilot projects for the voting by overseas Pakistanis in by-elections to ascertain the technical efficacy, secrecy, security and financial feasibility of such voting and share the results with the government, which would be shared with both the houses of parliament.
Under an amendment to Section 103 of the Election Act, 2017, the ECP might conduct the pilot projects to use the EVMs and the biometric verification system in the by-elections and present its report to parliament.
NAB law amendments would not be applicable to the “decisions of federal or provincial cabinets, their committees or sub-committees, Council of Common Interests (CCI), National Economic Council (NEC), National Finance Commission (NFC), Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (Ecnec), Central Development Working Party (CDWP), the State Bank of Pakistan and such other bodies except where the holder of the public office had received a monetary gain as a result of such decision”.
The bill further said that it would not be applicable to “procedural lapses in performance of any public or government work or function, project or scheme, unless there is evidence to prove that a holder of public office or any other person acting on his behalf has been conferred or has received any monetary or other material benefit from that particular public or government work or function whether directly or indirectly on account of such procedural lapses, which the said recipient otherwise received”.
Section 5(A) (term of a judge) stated that the judge of a court, who was serving as district and sessions judge would hold the office for three years and under Section 5(A)(2) he could not be removed or transferred before the completion of the term without consultation of the chief justice of the high court concerned.
The bill also reduced NAB chairman’s term from four to three years, stating that he would hold the office for a “non-extendable term and would not be eligible for subsequent appointment as chairman”.
The bill said that the valuation of immovable property would be reckoned on the date of purchase, either according to the total price shown in the relevant title documents or the applicable rates prescribed by district collector or the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) whichever was higher. It added that no evidence contrary to the later would be admissible.
For the purpose of calculation of movable assets, it said, the total sum of credit entries of bank account should not be treated as an asset, adding that the bank balance of an account on the date of initiation of inquiry might be treated as a movable asset.
The explanation of Section 9(vi) stated that “an act done in good faith and in discharge of official function shall not constitute an offence”, adding that nothing “shall be an offence of misuse of authority unless it is proved through material evidence” that the holder of public office had gained any monetary benefit or assets from the person in whose favour the act of misuse of authority was rendered.
Punishment for corruption and corrupt practices would be the rigorous imprisonment for a term which might extend to 14 years, according to the bill. The bill also omitted Section 14 (presumption against accused accepting illegal gratification).
Section 15 (disqualification to contest elections or to hold public office) stated that a convicted person would cease to hold public office forthwith and stand disqualified for a period of 10 years, to be reckoned from the date of his release after serving the sentence.
The same applied to the person availing the benefit of Section 25 (voluntary return and plea bargain).
Section 16 stated that an accused would be prosecuted within one year.
Section 18 (cognisance of offences) stated that the matter would be converted into an investigation if the allegations of commission of an offence were substantiated with material evidence after completion of inquiry. It further stated that any inquiry or investigation under this ordinance would be completed within six months.
Section 21, which stated that all evidence, document or any other material transferred to Pakistan by a foreign government would be receivable as evidence in legal proceedings under the ordinance, had been “omitted”.
Section 23 (transfer of property void), which barred transferring any property owned by the person under investigation or in that person’s possession while the inquiry, investigation or proceedings were pending before NAB or the court, had been “omitted”.
NAB chairman’s powers to arrest at any stage had been clipped and now he could only issue warrants of arrest if the accused was intentionally not joining investigation; attempting to abscond; would temper with the prosecution evidence; and if there was credible information regarding continuation of offence.
The detention period in NAB custody for the purpose of inquiry and investigation had been reduced from 90 days to 14 days.
Under Section 31DD, no inquiry, investigation, or proceedings in respect of a decision of a board of a bank or financial institution, would be initiated without the prior approval of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) governor.
Section 33-D stated that NAB chairman would submit annual report of its affairs to the National Assembly and the Senate at the end of every calendar year. Previously, NAB chairman used to submit the report to the president.
A newly inserted section, 33-F, stated that no official of NAB, in any capacity, would make any statement in public or to the media regarding the persons involved in any inquiry or investigation conducted by NAB until a reference had been filed against such persons.
Additionally, another newly added section, 33-G, said that the punishment for making public statement would be the imprisonment for a term up to one year but not less than a month and a fine of Rs1 million.
The power to make rules had also been taken from NAB chairman and the president and given to the federal government under Section 34. Section 36 stated that no suit, prosecution or any proceedings would lie against federal or provincial government, NAB chairman or NAB officials provided that if the accused had been acquitted by the court on the ground that the case was initiated with mala fide intention or based on false or fabricated evidence. It added that such a person would be punished with an imprisonment of five years and a fine.