Bad bargain

The plea bargain is routinely used in many countries as a way to quickly settle cases in a clogged judicial system or to provide relief to an accused in return for their testimony in snaring bigger fish. Only in Pakistan is it specifically designed as a way to whitewash the crimes of public servants and others. The Supreme Court, in a suo motu case, is looking into the constitutionality of plea bargain and voluntary return schemes used by the National Accountability Bureau and its impression is that these schemes violate the constitution. In practice, what NAB tends to do in the case of voluntary return, when corrupt officials willingly return even a portion of the money they stole, is give them a pardon and allow them to resume their jobs. The business and industrial elite use these schemes to avoid prosecution while paying only a fraction of the amount stolen, and that too usually in instalments. In the case of plea bargains, investigations have already been initiated when the government offers a deal for the accused to pay back all the money they stole in return for having criminal charges dropped. With voluntary return, the NAB chairman has the sole authority to release criminal liability for the person returning the money, while under the plea bargain scheme the deal must be approved by the courts, which usually act as a rubber stamp.

There are many reasons why both schemes should be abolished. First, there is the fact that the right to a plea bargain is not available to most Pakistani citizens. It was only introduced in the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999 and can only be offered by NAB. If plea bargains are such a great deal for the state then why are they not extended to the rest of the population? The answer is implicit in the question. Plea bargains and voluntary returns are used to pad accounts and tout success in retrieving stolen money while the corrupt escape real punishment. That NAB keeps details of plea bargains secret from the public shows just how little scrutiny these deals can bear. This quid pro quo makes a mockery of justice and allows NAB to play by its own rules. As the Supreme Court observed, this only ends up encouraging more corruption. Corrupt officials pay only a fraction of the amount they have looted since NAB is usually unwilling to expend the resources to fully investigate cases and determine the full amount that was stolen. With their public benefit so minimal, it is time to do away with schemes that seem to have been created to keep the corrupt out of prison. The government should also look at the tendency to offer inducements as a way of preventing criminality. This extends beyond voluntary return and plea bargain to include the various tax amnesty schemes that are regularly proposed. Until enforcement is beefed up, such ways of recovering looted wealth will either be ignored or used to whitewash dirty money.