Sham accountability

The move to bring down the writ of NAB and render it an impotent body is no service to rule of law and accountability

The amendments introduced in the accountability laws are up for debate, as their tailor-made entailment is questionable.

It is public knowledge that the legislation was rewritten with the express intention to benefit the sitting dispensation in power, as they have been facing cases of corruption for long. If the amended version is signed into law, the ongoing mega-corruption cases in the courts would be rendered infructuous. Likewise, an attempt has been made to reverse or nullify judgments that were passed previously in the courts of law pertaining to forgery, concealment of assets and money-laundering. This is tantamount to mockery of law and justice, and elicits some detailed introspection and necessary rectification. The structured move to bring down the writ of NAB and render it into an impotent body is no service to rule of law and accountability.

A glance at the legislation indicates that the burden of proof has now been shifted to the prosecution, rather than the accused. This will act as a major impediment in cases of assets beyond means, and put the officials in a nightmare. Proving cases of corruption and misuse of official authority would become next to impossible, thwarting the process of accountability to a nullity. The amendment, turned down by the head of state, takes away NAB’s powers to act on taxation matters; and all pending inquiries, probes, trials and proceedings shall stand relegated to relevant forum’s watchdogs.

The amendment also says that evidence from abroad shall not be entertained; cheating public at large must be a case of numerical strength; provision of money trail will no more be solicited; and last but not least the definition of assets changed in a crude attempt to conceal charges of money-laundering. Moreover, cases of Benamidar will be subject to a particular criterion, which will open floodgates of corruption. The point of concern is that these changes were inserted into law despite expressed reservations exhibited by the judiciary. Perhaps, this is why the opposition is contemplating to challenge them, accordingly. No judicious society can be built on the premise of sham accountability, and belittling lawful prosecution is a crime in itself. Time to revisit the law in all selflessness.