Credibility of accountability

BY A H M E D B I L A L M E H B00 B | 11/10/2019 12:00:00 AM

AMID the current political turmoil, accountability and the National

Accountability Bureau (NAB) figure most prominently. On the one side is a
passionate section of the population eager to punish and even `hang` anyone
who, in their opinion, has plunderednationalwealth.NABisthe
primeinstrument through which they wish to realise their wishes, as the
institution has been at the centre stage of this accountability drive during the
past few years. On the other hand is a sizeable and growing lobby which
believes the accountability process is not just and even-handed and is turning
into a tool of political victimisation.

A number of politicians, businessmen and civil servants have been

complaining and protesting about how the process of accountability is being
conducted, but the most authoritative statement on the issue was given by
Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa while speaking recently at the
start of the new judicial year. Mincing no words, he said: `We ... feel that the
growing perception that the process of accountability being pursued in the
country at present is lopsided and is a part of political engineering, is a
dangerous perception and some remedial steps need to be taken urgently so
that the process does not lose credibility ... The recovery of stolen wealth of
the citizenry is a noble cause and it must be legitimately and legally pursued
where it is due, but if in the process the constitutional and legal morality of
society and the recognised standards of fairness and impartiality are
compromised then retrieval of the lost constitutional and legal morality may
pose an even bigger challenge to the society at large in the days to come.

It was very surprising that despite the fact that these powerful words were
spoken by the country`s topmost judicial authority at an important event, the
concerned institutions did not take much notice nor was there much of a
change in NAB`s conduct.

NAB is the latest of the accountability mechanisms with which Pakistan has
experimented during the past 70 years or so. In the initial few years, its
performance and political neutrality remained
aboveboard;thatis,untilGenPervezMusharraf,at the beginning of whose tenure
it was set up,acquired political ambitions of his own. NAB then became the
premier institution through which politicians were arm-twisted into switching
their loyalties to Musharraf and his favourite political party, the PML-Q.
Since then, though NAB has done some commendable work, its reputation as
a neutral state institution has never recovered.

NAB is not the first such institution which has been blamed for one-sided
accountability and political engineering in Pakistan. This country has a long
history of enacting laws and creating institutions ostensibly for the sake of
accountability but whose primary aim was to target a particular section of
society, especially the one which was not on the right side of the government
of the time.

Pakistan`s first constituent assembly passed the controversial Public and

Representative Of fice (Disqualification) Act, 1949 (Proda)that provided for
the trial of public office holders and disqualification from holding public of
fice for up to 15 years. The law was thoroughly misused against political
opponents.

In March 1959, the martial law administration of Gen Ayub Khan

promulgated the Public Offices (Disqualification) Order (Poda) along the
lines of Proda. It then went a step further and also promulgated the Elective
Bodies (Disqualification) Order in August 1959. Ebdo was meant to get rid of
all those political elements that could offer resistance or come in the way of
Gen Ayub`s political ambitions. The system did not spare anyone against
whom even the slightest charge of misconduct could be investigated. Ebdo
also provided for the possibility of voluntary retirement, in which case the
inquiry against the public official was to be dropped. Over 6,000 persons
were hit by Ebdo, the majority of whom either opted to retire or were
disqualified.

In the post-Musharraf era, both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto used their
own peculiar accountability devices to destroy their political opponents.

Even the presidents of the country acted in a partisan manner when they
established special accountability cells within the presidency to institute cases
against the prime ministers sacked by them.

The Ehtesab Bureau established from 1997-1999by then prime minister

Nawaz Sharif under senator Saifur Rehman earned special notoriety for
torturing and aggressively convicting political opponents, especially Benazir
Bhutto and her husband Asif Zardari. This history sadly tells us that impartial
accountability was perhaps never the objective; the idea was to settle political
scores in the guise of accountability.

The NABlawwasimproved afteritwas amended to provide for the bipartisan

appointment of the NAB chairman by the prime minister after meaningful
consultation with the leader of the opposition. But 20 years down the line,
after experimenting with various brands of accountability, NAO 1999, or the
NAB law as it is more commonly known, needs to be reformed because the
process of accountability must inspire across-the-board respect and
credibility. If the NABlaw has not been
reformedsofar,NABisnottoblame:itistheresponsibility of the major political
parties represented in parliament to amend the law and bring in needed
reforms. The PML-N and the PPP had agreed on these reforms in their
Charter of Democracy but during their terms of government between
20082013 and 2013-2018, they f ailed to amend the law.

Even now, a broad agreement seems to exist among the major parties,
including the PTI, about the need to improve the NAB law but political
confrontation does not allow them to pass the required amendments. Just a
few days ago, among a number of ordinances bulldozed through the National
Assembly by PTI legislators was one stipulating that those convicted under
the NAB law of having committed corruption of over Rs50 million will be
incarcerated as class-C prisoners.

As long as political expediency and the temptation to harm political

opponents remains the priority, the accountability process will continue to be
perceived as a tool of political engineering, to borrow the term used by the
chief justice of Pakistan.

The writer is president of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development

And Transparency.

president@pildat.org Twitter:@ABMPildat
[TOP]

Downloading