NAB's action and retraction

Its way of work often times leads the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) into awkward situations, like its recent decision to send its people to serve summonses on Shahbaz Sharif's wife Nusrat and two daughters regarding an investigation into an alleged mega money laundering scam. The opposition parties severely criticised the move terming it "an insult to women" which may come across to many as a patronizing attitude, of seeing women as the 'weaker sex' and hence unequal beings. Nonetheless, some press reports point out it is usual practice for the accountability body to summon women related to suspects under investigation. In this case, though, apparently due to the high profile status of the personalities involved, NAB Chairman former Justice Javed Iqbal intervened arriving in Lahore on the very next working day to hold a meeting with his Lahore Director General Shahzad Saleem. Soon afterwards, the Lahore office withdrew the summonses sending in questionnaires instead. The chairman also said that henceforth he would personally monitor all investigations against the Sharif family. Regardless of the sensitivities involved, it was a good decision.
The anti-graft watchdog should have adopted that approach right from the beginning. Any discrepancies in the answers and the evidence the investigators say they have in their possession could be challenged in a court of law. Unfortunately, high-handed investigation methods are routinely employed and suspects publicly humiliated sometimes to the breaking point, as in the recent case of Brig Asad Munir (retd) who committed suicide rather than submit himself to be paraded handcuffed in full glare of TV cameras. Such treatment of suspects amounts to harassment and must stop. Granted, it is not easy to prove white collar crimes, which is why under the NAB law the onus is on the accused to prove his/her assets are commensurate with their known sources of income. But when the NAB claims to be in possession of irrefutable evidence, like in the present instance, there seems to be no need to drag people into intimidating investigation rooms, or even jails, for interrogation purposes, eliciting statements that can be disowned in a court of law. The same documentary evidence should be presented before the courts, where the accused can be cross-examined, leading to verdicts that should be acceptable for the parties concerned whether they like them or not. It is hoped from now on, the example the chairman has now set, of issuing questionnaires instead of summonses, is to serve as a precedent in all other cases.
To be sure, NAB does not always create unpleasant situations; it has also produced some good work. Just the other day, it announced recovery of properties and cash worth a whopping one billion rupees, on the basis of plea bargain, from a former Punjab Power and Development Company CEO, Ikram Naveed, reportedly an aide of Shahbaz Sharif's son-in-law, Imran Yousaf, a proclaimed offender in the case. The NAB can pat itself on the back for this success; it should also review its investigating techniques and make necessary amends.