Bridging govt-opposition differences: Go-to persons at work to make NAB palatable

ISLAMABAD: 'Friends', who enjoy influence on both sides of the political divide, are trying to help reform NAB by acting as a bridge between the government and the opposition.

Refined version of draft amendments to NAB law as was suggested to the NA standing committee a few months back by the opposition, have already been handed over informally to the Friends recently by the PML-N-PPP following an assurance that the government will be persuaded to end the growing injustices of the Bureau.

Interestingly, not only the opposition and the government, but the people working behind the scenes are also convinced that with the NAB in its present shape and style of work, the country could not be run as neither the bureaucracy finds itself secure nor the business community is comfortable whereas the courts have repeatedly talked how politicians are persecuted by the unchecked NAB. The News has the copy of the draft amendments, shared with the Friends. Interestingly, the government late Friday night shared a draft of NAB amendments containing changes which are far from what has been suggested by the opposition. The government draft is also available with this correspondent. The comparison of the two drafts shows that the those people have not yet succeeded to convince the government for the badly needed changes in the NAB law.

The opposition’s 15-page draft law suggested extensive changes in the NAB law to end its draconian aspects besides ensuring that the law is not abused to hound, harass and jail people without the availability of concrete evidence.

The government’s draft amendment law is three-page and is generally the reproduction of the NAB Ordinance 2019, which was primarily promulgated to address the concerns of civil bureaucracy and businessmen, but has lapsed as the government could not pass it from the Parliament.

In the government’s proposed changes, a strange addition has been made which, if approved, will make the four-year term of the NAB chairman extendable.

The opposition’s draft law proposed clipping of NAB chairman’s power to arrest any person, required by the NAB for inquiry, investigation etc. The opposition suggested that the NAB could seek arrest of any accused from the court, which will have the authority to get anyone behind the bars during the course of inquiry, investigations and during trial of the case.

The opposition’s draft proposed a maximum 14 days remand instead of the present 90 days, of an accused who has been ordered to be arrested by the court.

The definition of corruption and corrupt practices has also been recommended to be changed to ensure that merely on the basis of assumption and without the availability of concrete evidence no person could be proceeded against by the NAB. These changes expect the NAB to find a link between crime and assets of the accused instead of going after everyone whose assets are disproportionate to his/her known sources of income.

The draft changes bar the NAB from proceeding in matters including (a) transactions and matters pertaining to federal or provincial taxation, duties, levies or imposts, by whatever name called; (b) matters, including incidental matters, which have been decided by, or fall within the jurisdiction of a regulatory body established under a federal or provincial law; (c) decisions of cabinet, ECC, CCI, Ecnec, or any other policy-making statutory body established under a federal law or provincial law: (d) a transaction or subject matter not involving any property, funds or fiscal interest of the federal or provincial government.

The provisions of this ordinance, it is proposed, shall not apply to transactions and persons related thereto if the subject matter thereof and/or loss to the federal government or a provincial government, as the case may be, is less than Rs1 billion.

The draft law also suggested transfer of all inquiries, investigations and NAB cases, which does not fall in the jurisdiction of proposed NAB law, to the respective authorities or departments which administer the relevant laws of taxation, levies or imposts or exercise such regulatory powers by whatever name called.

From the definition of public office holders, the members of the Parliament, parliamentary secretaries are suggested to be excluded.

The draft law proposed three-year non extendable tenure of the NAB chairman. It also suggests the appointment of NAB’s prosecutor general by the president following a consultation between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.

The draft law also dis-empowers the chairman NAB from ordering seizure of property of any accused. This power is also suggested to be given to the court. Draft changes also proposed that a convict of the NAB would cease to hold his office only after his final conviction. i.e. “cease to hold public office after the appeal process against his conviction has been exhausted”.

It also proposed a maximum of six months trial of a NAB case besides ensuring that the NAB could file only one reference and there would be no provision for supplementary references. It says the NAB shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation or file any reference for an alleged offence after the passing of seven years from the date of the transaction or act constituting the offence. The NAB shall not initiate action on allegations (i) contained in a complaint which is anonymous or pseudonymous: (ii) which do not involve public money: (iii) which, under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, cannot be investigated due to lapse of time or relate to a period for which records need not be maintained by the holder of public office; (v) which relate to the business of government-controlled public or private limited or other companies for which regulatory provisions exist in their parent statutes or any other law for the time being in force, including the Securities Act, 2015; (vi) which relate to decisions of a government official committee at the ministerial level on matters falling within its purview.

The NAB section dealing with voluntary return is suggested to be omitted while in the case of plea bargain, the suggested change provides that if a holder of public office offers to return the assets or gains acquired or made by him in the course, or as a consequence of any offence under this ordinance, such a person shall cease to hold public office forthwith and shall stand disqualified for a period of 10 years, to be reckoned from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or from being elected.

Trial of the NAB accused is proposed to be carried out in the province from where he is elected or served. The suggested changes also proposed all fresh appointments in the NAB to be made by the FPSC.

The NAB is also barred from making any statement in public or to the media regarding persons involved in any inquiry or investigation conducted by the NAB until a reference has been filed against such person. Any NAB official violating this provision shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, but shall not be less than one month in any case and with a fine of Rs1 million.

The suggested law also provides for filing a complaint or bring a suit against any officer of NAB for physical torture or harassment caused by NAB officers or for falsely implicating any person, exaggerating or fabricating charges or evidence in the matter.

The government’s draft bill, shared with The News by a senior opposition leader, suggested the provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the following persons and transactions, namely:

(a) Matters pertaining to federal or provincial taxation, levies or imposts. (b) any person or entity, or transaction in relation thereto, who or which are not directly or indirectly connected with a holder of public office, except offences falling under clauses (ix), (x) and (xi) of sub-section (a) of section 9; (c) with regard to procedural lapses in any government project or scheme, no action under this ordinance shall be taken against any holder of public office, unless it is shown that the holder of public office, his dependents or benamidars have benefitted by gaining any material benefit, and there is evidence to corroborate the acquiring of such benefit.

Misuse of authority by a holder of public office will make a case for NAB only if there is corroborative evidence of any material benefit drawn by a public office holder, his dependents or benamidars relating to that transaction. An act done in good faith and in discharge of duties and performance of official functions shall not, unless there is corroborative evidence of accumulation of any material benefit from that act, constitute an offence.

The government draft’s also suggest that with regard to any matter pertaining to the rendition of any advice, opinion or report, no action under this Ordinance shall be taken against any holder of public office, unless it is shown that the holder of public office, his dependents or benamidars have gained any material benefit, and there is evidence to corroborate such benefit.

It is also suggested that the valuation of immovable properties, for the purposes of assessing as to whether a holder of public office has assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, shall be reckoned either according to the applicable rate prescribed by the district collector or the Federal Board of Revenue, whichever is higher. No evidence contrary to the latter shall be admissible.