ISLAMABAD: The new amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law have laid exceptional emphasis thrice on any monetary gain of a public officeholder “disproportionate to known sources of income” from an act for taking them out of the domain of the anti-graft agency.
It has also been repeated for at least three times that no action will be taken against any holder of public office, unless it is shown that he has materially benefited by gaining any asset or monetary benefit which is disproportionate to his known sources of income or where such material benefit cannot be reasonably accounted for and there is evidence to corroborate such material benefit.
Such stress is intended to make it mandatory for NAB not to touch officials and public office holders, who have not monetarily gained from any action performed in their official duty. A plethora of references filed by the NAB in accountability courts and inquiries and investigations being carried out by it relate to the assets disproportionate to known sources of income against several persons, who are not accused of corruption in acts done by them in their official capacity.
NAB has admitted before trial courts for a number of times that the arraigned accused persons had not committed any corruption but were guilty of inflicting damage to the national exchequer.
All the accused, who are facing trials and are in jail or on bail but are not charged with committing corruption and are accused of procedural lapses or irregularities, and whether they are politicians or bureaucrats or other citizens, are expected to quickly invoke the new amendments and get prompt relief even from the accountability courts.
Another key feature, thus far down-played, of the instant changes in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, is that trials [pertaining to federal or provincial taxation, levies or imposts] will stand transferred from the relevant accountability courts to the criminal courts which deal with offences under the respective laws pertaining to these matters.
Like trials, all inquiries and investigations into such matter will also stand shifted to the respective authorities or departments which administer the relevant laws of taxation, levies or imposts.
It means that the retrospective effect has been enforced to take such inquests from NAB and references from the accountability courts without mentioning the term “retrospective effect” in the amendments.
Procedural lapses and irregularities in any government project or scheme have often been used by the NAB against public office holders as well as bureaucrats to arrest them for investigation and trial. Normally such “offences” are based on the audit reports. Only three days back, NAB repeated this practice when it started inquiry into “Rs62 billion corruption” in the Lahore ring road. The alleged corruption was mentioned in the audit report.
Another important change is the insertion of an “explanation” in the NAO, which says nothing shall be construed as misuse of authority by a public office holder unless there is corroborative evidence of accumulation of any monetary benefit or asest which is disproportionate to his known sources of income or which can’t be reasonably accounted for.
The explanation has been added to Section 9(1) (vi), which says a holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices if he misuses his authority so as to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person, or renders or attempts to render or willfully fails to exercise his authority to prevent the grant, or rendition of any undue benefit or favour which he could have prevented by exercising his authority.
When Ahsan Iqbal was presented before an accountability court of Islamabad by NAB for the first time after his arrest to get his physical remand three days back in the Narowal Sports City project investigation, the NAB lawyer read out the charge-sheet against him but when the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) asked what corruption he committed, the prosecutor said none.
Same is the case in the cases relating to the Ramzan Sugar Mills and Ashiana Housing Scheme cases in which PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif and other members are arraigned.
An interesting story surrounds the issuance of the instant The National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999. Till the writing of this report, its certified copy has not been officially released. Generally, the moment the president signs an ordinance it is made pubic even before its publication in the official gazette at a later stage.
The non-release of an authentic official copy of the amendments created a lot of confusion. It is gathered that the original draft circulated on Dec 26 among 10 ministers for aviation, communications and postal services, defence production, economic affairs division, federal education & professional training & national history & literary heritage division, housing & works, human rights and information technology and telecommunication for recording their opinions made it way to the print and electronic media. What was actually issued later was drastically different from this draft.
It was stated in the official letter sent to these cabinet members that if a minister does not communicate his/her opinion by that time [today ie Dec 26], the day the communication was sent to them, it shall be assumed that he/she accepts the recommendations contained in the summary of law ministry sent to the prime minister disposal by circulation.
The summary for the cabinet said it all. It stated that under the existing [NAB] regime a number of inquiries have been initiated against holders of public office and government servants on account of procedural lapses where no actual corruption is involved. This has enhanced NAB’s burden and has also affected working of the federal government, it said.
According to the summary, further NAB has also assumed parallel jurisdiction and is inquiring into matters pertaining to taxation, imposition of levies, and, therefore, interfering within the domain of taxation regulatory bodies. It is, therefore, felt necessary to define through the subject amendments the operational domain of NAB, the summary concluded.