PML-N and the PPP are mad at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Qamar-uz-Zaman for submitting before a Supreme Court bench a list of 150 mega corruption cases that includes, among others, the names of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Finance Minister Ishaque Dar, former president Asif Ali Zardari and premiers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf.
Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid accusing the Bureau of defaming people (logon ki pagri uchhalna) said that NAB had levelled false allegations against the political leadership and that the institution itself must be scrutinised. Departing from tradition, National Assembly Speaker Sheikh Ayaz Sadiq addressed a press conference to brandish the threat of bringing a reference against Zaman, warning him not to underestimate the powers of the Assembly. Echoing the minister's words he too called for holding the accountability bureau to account. Interestingly, it is the same NAB Chairman who was appointed by the Nawaz League and the PPP through mutual consultation, disregarding PTI's objections. Imran Khan later challenged the appointment in the apex court, forcing Zaman to go on leave till he got a clean chit for alleged involvement in the NLC scam from NAB to head NAB!
The two parties had put him there, apparently, in the hope that he would remain beholden to them and go easy on cases involving them. He may have wanted to do just that but for the court's intervention. Going by the minister and the speaker's angry reaction, they want to get rid of him now - something undoable through executive action considering that the incumbent can be removed only on the grounds of removal of judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan - because, according to them, he has made false allegations against the political leadership. The cases in question may be politically motivated since they go to the Musharraf regime's time. However, if a case is undecided that does not necessarily make it false. The incumbent and his predecessors are responsible for inefficiency considering that out of the 150 cases instituted by the Musharraf regime that ended more than seven years ago, 71 are still in the inquiry stage and 41 under investigation while references have been filed in 38 instances only. NAB should have done better than that, closing the cases where sufficient proof was unavailable.
Yet the government and the parliamentary Opposition's angry reaction is misplaced. For the fact of the matter is that the list of alleged fraudsters has come to light on the orders of a Supreme Court bench. The Bureau officers have only complied with the court's instructions. Unsatisfied with the first list the bench had demanded all details of cases involving some of the high and mighty of the land- past and present- missing from the initial list. Deficiency of details could be seen as an attempt on NAB's part to try and protect certain people.
In any event, it does not behoove responsible public leaders to hurl dismissal threats at the accountability bureau for naming names. The accused should try and clear their names through relevant legal forums. Those innocent should have no hesitation to do that considering that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Shahbaz Sharif came out at a press conference to explain that inclusion of the Sharif family's name in the NAB list was unfair and that neither he nor his brother is a loan defaulter. "We never asked any bank, private or public, to waive off our loans," he averred. It of course is for the apex court to decide whether or not the claim is valid.
Irrespective of the present case, whenever accused of corruption, politicians and their apologists complain of victimisation. The standard argument being that politicians alone are not involved in corruption cases, bureaucracy and military have their share of bad apples. Indeed, they do. But the argument does not help. For first of all, two - or more - wrongs do not make a right. Second and more importantly, elected politicians have a duty towards the public to deliver good governance, and hence have a special obligation to root out corruption. They carry the ultimate responsibility to fix systemic flaws and prevent misuse of public resources by anyone. Instead of fuming over allegations of wrongdoing, all those named in the NAB list, aside from facing the law, should pay attention to the need of putting in place an effective and impartial accountability mechanism.
So far the government and the main opposition have shown no interest whatsoever in strengthening the anti-corruption law. During its rule the PPP introduced an accountability bill, which was aimed more at giving a clean chit to ruling party's own members than to institute reform. The present government too has shown little enthusiasm for making NAB a strong anti-corruption watchdog. Like the PPP before, its accountability Ordinance (Amendment) Bill, 2015, remains sitting ignored in Parliament.
Apparently the existing deeply flawed law with its 'plea bargain' loophole works well for those who have the power to change it. Wrongdoers can wriggle out through it by paying a small amount of the ill-gotten money ie, 20-30 percent of the principal, and pocket the rest.
As it is, under the law of the land small-time thieves when nabbed have no choice but to return whatever is left of the takings and go behind bars for a period commensurate with the level of the crime. The big thieves caught by NAB can go scot-free and keep much of the money, too. This is an unacceptable parallel justice system for high financial crime. Justice Jawwad Khwaja has aptly termed the practice 'institutional corruption.' Instead of ranting and raving against the NAB Chairman for bringing up specific cases, this government needs to institute reform to root out institutionalised corruption.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.