NAB matters

The recent plea bargain struck between the National Accountability Bureau and former Balochistan finance secretary Mushtaq Raisani, who had corruption cases dropped against him after returning only a fraction of the money he is accused of stealing, has brought renewed focus to the practices of the accountability body. The Supreme Court’s long-running suo motu hearing into the use of plea bargains and voluntary return schemes now seems to nearing an end with NAB given one week to defend these practices. The Supreme Court has made it clear that is disapproves of both practices since they allow corrupt government officials and others to pay a small portion of their illicit gains and then stay away from jail. Although details of the deals reached with those accused of corruption are sometimes released, as in the Raisani case, most of the time they are kept secret. These would seem to confirm that plea bargains and voluntary return will not be able to withstand public scrutiny. This is why the Supreme Court has called NAB a facilitator of corruption. These deals reek of NAB officials helping out the wealthy and connected rather than doing their job and serving the nation.

The defence provided by NAB is that it does not act of its own accord but is only exercising the authority given to it under the National Accountability Ordinance. While it may be true that the ordinance gives NAB the power to offer plea bargains and voluntary return, it does not justify the liberal way in which NAB has used these powers. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has to decide if these provisions in the ordinance are compatible with the principles of justice. Right now NAB is acting as an investigative, prosecuting and judicial body since it gathers evidence against the corrupt, frames cases against them and decides whether to offer them plea bargains and voluntary return. Vesting so much power in one agency creates conditions that are ripe for abuse and that is what seems to have happened. Corrupt officials and other individuals are encouraged to continue robbing the country blind since they know the only punishment they face is that they will have to give a portion of the money back. Such schemes should be suspended or even outright repealed until we can be sure that is the public – and not accused criminals – who are getting a good deal.