Who will bell the cat?

ISLAMABAD: In its repeated rulings, the judiciary has established the fact that the NAB has become a tool for political engineering. It hounds, harasses and unlawfully puts innocent people behind bars, and even harms the country and the nation; however, the question remains – who will bell the cat.

The latest ruling of the Supreme Court in Paragon housing corruption reference has totally exposed the injustices, which has become a routine for the Bureau. This is not the first time that the judiciary has indicted the Bureau but like before this judgment too contains no direction to clip the NAB powers that are grossly abused.

Unfortunately, the parliamentarians despite being the worst victim of the draconian aspects of the NAB law have terribly failed to improve the law and keep a check on the Bureau’s working.

Consequently, despite the SC’s latest landmark decision, the draconian NAB law will continue to harass and hound innocent people and there will be no check on the massive abuse of power by the NAB and its top bosses.

The SC Monday noted that the NAB was certainly not serving the national interest rather it was causing irretrievable harm to the country, nation, and society in multiple ways. The court said the Bureau was being flagrantly used for political engineering adding that the discriminatory approach of the NAB was also affecting its image and had shaken the faith of the people in its credibility.

The court said the Bureau’s highhandedness and brazen disregard for human dignity had attracted ignominy and notoriety beyond our frontiers too. Judiciary’s charge sheet against NAB keeps growing. In several cases during the last couple of years, the superior judiciary has found that the NAB is wrong in making corruption cases and arresting individuals for months and years.

However, there is no correction being made in the system either by the parliament or by the government to save innocent people from being wronged in the name of corruption and corrupt practices.

In its recent orders, the superior judiciary has seriously questioned the NAB’s functioning in different cases and used words and expressions like “arbitrary use of power”, “mala fide”, “conjectures”, “unperceived perceptions”, “lack of capacity” etc for the Bureau and its accountability.

In almost all these cases, the courts have found NAB’s failure to produce evidence of corruption but it arrested the accused. The superior judiciary has not only pointed out poor understanding of the NAB investigators, but also questioned the decision making of the incumbent chairman NAB. Despite such repeated damning orders from the superior judiciary against the NAB, no corrective measures have been taken to save people from Bureau’s abuse of power.

In a PUNJMIN mining contract reference, the LHC while accepting the bail application of Muhammad Subtain Khan, the then minister for mines and minerals, had pointed out that the NAB in 2013 had closed the inquiry into the matter noting that no loss had been caused to the public exchequer as the contract was cancelled by the Punjab government but the chairman NAB reopened the case without holding an inquiry against those who had closed it earlier.

The LHC verdict had also pointed out serious flaws in the Bureau’s decision making even at the highest level and noted, “But surprisingly without bringing on record any fresh ground or to digging out any hidden truth, the inquiry was reinitiated on the same allegations vide letter dated 26.04.2018 issued by the DG NAB. The reasons and circumstances were, apparently, neither brought before the chairman NAB, nor had he formed opinion on the basis of material. He had just ordered the reopening of inquiry without holding any official of the NAB responsible for closure of the inquiry.

It is not the whims and designs unsubstantiated by fresh disclosed facts on the basis of which it could reopen the closed inquiry in a slipshod manner. The reasons, if any, are shrouded in mystery. Needless to observe here that with greater power comes great responsibility. The powers of the chairman are also structured by law and conscience, and therefore, he must be guided by them and not by unperceived perception infatuated by his subjective approach so as to use his discretion for taking some kind of an imaginary blaming act. The prosecution has not alleged that the petitioner has got any kickbacks, made financial gains or caused any corresponding loss to the State.” In another case, the IHC has almost trashed the NAB’s LNG Terminal case in which three reputed men - former premier Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, ex-finance minister Miftah Ismail and MD PSO S Imranul Haq- were arrested for months.

Admitting the bail application of former MD PSO Sheikh Imranul Haq, the IHC in its order pointed out sheer incompetence of NAB, how the cases are made on the basis of mere “conjectures”, lack of Bureau’s capacity to probe such matters, arbitrary use of NAB law provisions, violation of fundamental rights and that standard global business practices are treated by the anti-graft body as corruption and corrupt practices.

The IHC said the NAB could not point out any significant violation of the rules committed in the bidding process of LNG Terminal whereas the figures quoted by the Bureau as alleged loss to the exchequer were based on conjectures.

According to the IHC judgment, there was no material evidence of corruption available against the petitioner but it was NAB’s conjecture that Sheikh Imranul Haq’s appointment as MSPSO was an alleged gain for him. The court underlined that the standard business practices and arrangement, which are industry norms internationally, are being treated as corruption and corrupt practices.

The judgment said, “We have noted in several cases that the investigations are not carried out by expert fraud examiners or investigators or data mining experts. We had also not come across any case like the one in hand where chartered accountants or trained professionals in matters relating to white-collar crime may have been associated during the inquiry or investigation. The capacity and professional competence of investigators is inevitable to deal with matters relating to white-collar crime. The object for which the Ordinance of 1999 was enacted can only be achieved if the alleged crime is investigated by professionals who are trained as experts in the white-collar crime. The case in hand appears to be a classic example of violation of guaranteed rights of a citizen. The investigation reports placed on record and the written comments filed in this case speak volumes for the competence and capacity of the Bureau to investigate white collar crime.”

Before the above decision by IHC, the Saaf Pani Project, Ramazan Sugar Mills and Ashiana Housing Scheme – the three corruption cases made by the National Accountability Bureau against Shahbaz Sharif and others – had already become huge embarrassment for the NAB at the hands of the superior judiciary. In at least two of these cases, the Lahore High Court found “mala fide” on part of NAB. In all the three cases, the LHC found no abuse of authority or violation of law, rules and procedure. Rather the court held that no corruption, kickback, commission or illegal gratification was alleged even by the NAB.

The corruption watchdog had alleged abuse of authority and illegalities against former three time chief minister and his key bureaucratic aides but failed to prove any allegation.

Despite the fact that at the bail stage the courts make a cursory assessment of allegations and do not go deep down but the Lahore High Court in at least two cases — Saaf Pani and Ramazan Sugar – found mala fide on part of the NAB.

The LHC on the bail application of Shahbaz Sharif in Ashiana Housing Scheme and Ramazan Sugar Mill had ruled that Shahbaz neither misused his authority nor misappropriated funds allocated for the project or received illegal gratifications, commission or kickbacks.

In the Ashiana case, the court ruled that not an inch of state land was given to anyone. In Saaf Pani case, the management saved almost Rs400 million whereas in Ramazan Sugar Mill case, the court found that the drain, which the NAB alleged was built for Ramazan sugar, was a “public welfare project”.

While dealing with the NAB’s Ashiana case, the LHC had referred to the PTI government’s housing scheme to expose the double standard of the NAB, and said, “It is not understandable that as to why the NAB is insisting that the project (Ashiana housing) should have been executed in the government mode instead of public-private partnership mode when the latter mode is also lawful as envisaged under the Public Private Partnership Act, 2014. It is also noteworthy that even the sitting government has launched a project for construction of 5,000,000 houses in Pakistan under the same mode (public-private partnership) and no objection has so far been raised in this respect by the NAB.”