Anti-money laundering bill: Rabbani says it is an attempt to make entire nation an informer

ISLAMABAD: Ex-chairman Senate and PPP Senator Raza Rabbani, in response to criticism of the opposition by Prime Minister Imran on the FATF-related bill, said in the Senate Wednesday that the prime minister himself might not have backed the bill if he had read it, as it was an attempt to turn the entire nation an informer.

On a point of public importance, Rabbani contended that the prime minister was perhaps unaware of the draconian provisions in the Anti- Money Laundering (Second Amendment) Bill, 2020. He explained that the Bill seeks to convert the entire nation into mukhbir’s against each other.

He pointed out that Sub-section (12) of Section (2) of the Bill defines the designated non-financial businesses and professionals which include lawyers, notaries other legal professions accountants, jewelers, real estate agents, real estate developers and property dealers.

Whereas, he noted, Sub-section (XXXIV) defines a reporting entity, which includes the categories specified hereinabove. In Clause (13) of the Bill, it has been made compulsory upon reported entities to insist investigation agencies and if they don’t, they are liable to prosecution and punishment. In Clause 10 of the Bill, they are asking for deletion for Section 15 of the original Act that provides for powers to arrest. In the original act the investigation officer had to arrest by way of a warrant of arrest obtains from a court, here the power is being given to arrest without a warrant. “They are amending Section (21) of the original Act by replacing the word “non-cognizable” with the word “cognizable”. Schedule (2) of the original Bill, which carried the members of the Executive Committee, is being amended and two members of the armed forces are being inducted as its members,” he said.

Rabbani said that Schedule (3) of the original Bill, which contains the members of the General Committee is being amended under NAB chairman along with two members of the armed forces are being made members of the committee.

Senate Chairman Muhammad Sadiq Sanjrani and former chairman Raza Rabbani had completely divergent positions with regards to the taking up the two FATF-related bills in the House Tuesday and their consideration and rejection of the same by majority members.

Sanjrani’s ruling suggested that after the bills had been rejected, these would be transmitted to the National Assembly to be taken up in a joint sitting of the two chambers of the Parliament. However, Rabbani contended that the House neither passed nor rejected the bills, therefore, there was no question of these being transmitted to the assembly.

Senate chairman, in his ruling, which he read out in the House, said The Islamabad Capital Territory Waqf Properties Bill, 2020 and The Anti-Money Laundering (Second Amendment) Bill, 2020, as passed respectively by the National Assembly on August 24, 2020, were placed on the Orders of the Day for the Senate sitting held on August 25, 2020.

“In terms of rule 119 read with rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012, there shall be an intervening period of two working days between the receipt of notice by the Member or Minister-in-Charge to move that the Bill be taken into consideration and the day on which the motion for consideration is set down in the Orders of the Day. However, Rule 120 provides discretionary power to the Chairman to direct otherwise and accordingly, if so directed, a motion for consideration of Bill can be placed on the Order of the Day and moved without the gap of two working days,” he said.

He noted, “both bills passed by the National Assembly and the notices by Minister-in-Charge for consideration under rule 119 of the Senate Rules were received in the Senate Secretariat on the same day. I was conscious of the requirements and the powers vested in the Chairman under Rule 120 of the Senate Rules, however, wanted to build larger consensus on the important legislative business, hence, decided to devolve these discretionary powers to the House. Accordingly, prior to motions for consideration of bills, a motion under rule 263 of the Senate Rules to dispense with the requirements of rule 120 of the Senate Rules was placed on the Orders of the Day. Unfortunately, the spirit of devolution of my discretionary power to the House was misunderstood and an untoward situation between the Treasury and Opposition benches was created. More so, the Leader of the House in Senate, Minister for Law and Justice and Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs informed that the Bills were important and urgent as these pertain to important issues directly linked with the national interest”.

It is an admitted fact, he said that mere placement of motion under rule 263 on the Orders of the Day does not affect the requirements of rule 120 vis-à-vis discretionary powers of the Chairman. “Accordingly, being custodian of the House, in order to maintain the decorum of the House and to give fair opportunity for consideration of legislative business, contentedly linked with national interest, I withdrew my decision of devolution of discretionary powers and allowed consideration of Bills,” he maintained.

It was the constitutional prerogative of the House, he noted, either to pass or reject the bills. The bills were rejected by the voice vote at all stages including second and third readings of the bills (motion for consideration, clause by clause consideration, and motion for passage of the bill). Therefore, both bills were rejected after due exercise of constitutional rights by the members present.

“Neither the placement of motion under rule 263 on the Orders of the Day for dispensation of requirements of rule 120 was improper nor was the use of discretion in the larger national interest barred by rules and rejection of bills was under the spirit of Constitution and rules. It is hereby ruled that the proceedings of the House with regard to the related orders Nos. 27-30, are strictly in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012,” he concluded.

Rabbani was of the view that the chairman could not have had exercised his discretion in terms of Rule 120 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012, because he had forgone this discretionary power by allowing a motion under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012, which was placed at Order No. 26 of the Orders of the Day dated 25th August, 2020 for the suspension of Rule 120.

Therefore, he noted the notice period of two days as stipulated under Rule 120 had not been waived by the House, therefore, Order No. 27 and 29 could not have been taken up. He continued even if, this proposition is kept aside, Order 27 and 29 on the Orders of the Day dated 25th August, 2020, were motions asking for taking into consideration the bills as passed by the National Assembly.

The House refused to give permission for the bills to be taken into consideration, therefore, the procedure adopted of the second reading of the bill and the moving of order No. 28 and 30 on the Orders of the Day of 25th August, 2020 is in contravention of the Rules and Practices of the Senate. “As the House refused the leave to take into consideration the bills therefore, all subsequent steps are ultra vires of the Rules,” he said.

The bills, he pointed out, had not been rejected and or passed by the Senate, therefore, they could not be transmitted back to the National Assembly or to a Joint Sitting of Parliament in terms of Clause (3) of Article (70) of the Constitution, 1973.