Architects of plea bargain felt no shame: SC

Observes this law means do corruption and get back jobs after paying money; restrains NAB chairman from exercising power of voluntary return of money

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday restrained the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman from exercising powers under Section 25 (a) NAB Ordinance 1999 pertaining to voluntary return of looted money in graft cases. It observed that those who made the plea bargain law did not felt shame about the fact that the law denotes that people may do corruption and get back on their jobs after paying money.

The court directed the NAB prosecutor general to submit details pertaining to the volume of amount recovered through voluntary return and how much of it was deposited in the national exchequer without deducting a single penny.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and comprising Justice Ameer Hani Muslim and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed resumed hearing in the suo moto case.

On September 8, the chief justice took suo moto notice on a note of Registrar, containing details of observations of a two-member bench passed in Civil Appeal No 82-K of 2015 that due to the powers of NAB chairman under Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and effect of voluntary return in the NAB cases, as after the voluntary return, the accused goes scot-free without any stigma.

During the course of hearing, Justice Ameer Hani Muslim observed that with the amended section, the anti-graft body has created an environment of multiplying corruption.The court observed that the voluntary return and plea bargain’ section in the NAB allows the bureau to discharge an individual from ‘all his liability’ in the matter.

The CJ observed that the anti-graft body was exercising powers that even the court was not entitled to. He said that a person can visit the NAB office, settle the matter over a cup of coffee, and save his job.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that NAB was like a person standing in a busy marketplace screaming “do corruption and then return it voluntarily”.

“If a case goes to the FIA, there is no option of voluntary return, as one has to face the trial but when the same case goes to NAB, it was settled either through voluntary return or plea bargain. Isn’t this unfair?” he questioned.

Justice Ameer Hani observed that individuals involved in voluntary return include parliamentarians. The court asked the Attorney General as to whether he supports Section 25(a) of NAB Ordinance 1999. The Attorney General, Ashter Ausaf, told the court that he has sent a letter to the concerned authorities to look into the matter.

Chief Justice Jamali observed as to whoever made this law should be ashamed of it. He said that people in foreign countries laugh at some of the laws enacted in the country

Prosecutor General NAB Abbas Qadeer Dar told the court that it was wrong that NAB made 25 percent deduction in the amount recovered either through voluntary return or the plea bargain process.

At this, Justice Amer Hani Muslim asked the prosecutor general to give a statement before the court that all the recovered amount had been deposited in the national exchequer without deducting a single penny.

“With Section 25(a), the NAB has created an environment multiplying corruption,” Justice Hani told the prosecutor general and further asked him as to how many were holding public offices after making voluntary returns.

He said the NAB chairman has more powers than the chief executive of the country in term of making appointments. He said NAB has absorbed 60 percent officials from outside, adding that there is a rule for deputations. He said the court will examine the structure of NAB and the contract appointments made in it.

Justice Azmat Saeed said engineer rules have been violated while making appointments as an engineer is made a DG in NAB. Meanwhile, the court adjourned further hearing until November 7. It is pertinent to mention here some time back, a two-member bench of the apex court at the Karachi Registry in a detailed order in NAB appeals against an accountability court’s decision of refusing the remand of a private citizen in a fraud case had ruled that the authority of the NAB chairman to accept offer of voluntary return of the illegally earned money by corrupt public servants is prima facie in conflict with provisions of the Constitution.

The court had further ruled that this provision prima facie is in conflict with the provision of Constitution, where such power can only be exercised by a judicial forum as after payment of voluntary return, the person goes scot-free without any stigma on his career and can contest the elections and or can continue in public office, as the section does not provide any disqualification, as against the disqualification provided under Section 25(b) of the NAB Ordinance.

The court had directed its office to place the order before the Chief Justice of Pakistan for passing an appropriate order to treat the matter as a suo motu petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The court had observed that prima facie, the aforesaid issues raised the question of public importance having far-reaching effects and direct bearing on the fundamental rights of citizens of Pakistan in order to lay down the principles regarding cognizance of NAB in corruption matters under Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance.