Retributive justice

They confessed their crimes, surrendered their loot and returned to the money-making chairs they had occupied. And they are one or two, but 1584 who held positions high and low in the federal and provincial governments. They had succeeded in convincing the National Accountability Bureau they were fit cases for plea-bargain under Sec 25-A of the NAB Ordinance. The Bureau was expected to get hold of them and the concerned departments were to put them behind prison bars. But they were let go off the hook when they returned the plundered money in three equal instalments with mark-up and part of it to their handlers. Who cares if they wouldn't do it again. What a shame a law meant to eliminate corruption should protect and promote corruption. Nothing could be done against it because defenders of this very bad law were either above law or too persuasive, and so the evil practice continued for many years until the Supreme Court took its suo motu notice. In its verdict delivered recently, the apex court has asked the concerned officials in the government to take action against those who benefited from the voluntary return section of the NAB Ordinance, and that they are not eligible to hold government posts. It is said once the plea bargain was struck and the suspect was let off the hook his concerned department was informed for further action against him or her. But that was never done, nor does the Bureau seem to have bothered to ask why not. The Supreme Court has held that once a person accused of corruption or corrupt practices volunteers to return the embezzled amount prima facie he cannot hold any public office. The very fact that he has made voluntary return his conduct falls within the definition of misconduct under service law and that calls for initiation of a disciplinary action against the accused. No question such an attitude on the part of the concerned department has 'patronised' corruption. The Supreme Court also expressed anxiety that the amount so collected by the NAB is not being deposited in its entirety with the concerned government department forthwith as some of it is retained by the Bureau for distribution to its officials. The court would like to know details of the amount collected from the plea-bargained officials during the last 10 years and how much of it has been deposited with the government. For this the NAB has been directed to hand over copies of its report submitted to the apex court to the Establishment Division and provincial chief secretaries, who shall ensure initiation of departmental proceedings against the accused.

On the face of it, the Sec 25-A of the NAB Ordinance which permits voluntary return is in conflict with various provisions of the constitution. What is the difference between the ordinary thieves and the government officials who plunder the national wealth? How come you catch a thief but would let him go just because he has offered to surrender his loot. The National Accountability Bureau was assumed to go after the big fish, which it hasn't given the fact that none of the accused in mega scandals has been sent behind the bar. On the other hand, it has gone after petty criminals whose cases should have been dealt with by anti-corruption agencies and Federal Investigation Agency. That voluntary return is applicable at the time of inquiry, and once the case is upgraded to the investigation stage the accused is offered the option of voluntary return. It amounts to destroy the sense of right and wrong and a blot on the national conscience.