Aleem nabbed to justify Khaqan’s possible arrest: Ayaz Sadiq

ISLAMABAD: Will senior Punjab Minister Aleem Khan’s arrest by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) hasten amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) to regulate its powers to some extent?

“During our talks, we had repeatedly urged the government to change the NAO to rein in the draconian powers of NAB, but the official side was slow and unwilling,” senior Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader and former Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq told The News when contacted.

Read more: NAB summons Shahid Khaqan in LNG scam probe on Friday

Some five weeks ago, the two sides had held at least four rounds of talks to amend the NAO, as directed by the Supreme Court and as pressed by the opposition parties, but the dialogue process had been held in abeyance since then.

Ayaz Sadiq claimed that Aleem Khan’s arrest was, in fact, meant to justify the possible detention of former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi by NAB in the next couple of days. However, he said Aleem Khan’s arrest was wrong because nothing had so far been proved against him and only an inquiry was going on in the NAB.

On the other hand, the former speaker said that NAB has done nothing in an almost established case against Aleem Khan which pertains to providing land to the Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution (EOBI) that is pending with the anti-corruption agency since 2014. “The present arrest is just an eyewash.”

The opposition parties, he said, have been trying to prevail upon the government to amend the NAO to allow the NAB to take an accused into custody only after something has been proven against him during the investigations.

Ayaz Sadiq said that there was a clear difference in NAB’s approach--it has arrested some opposition leaders even before investigations while it has not touched some government stalwarts like Babar Awan even after filing references against them.

“We had told the government side that it should not wait for the arrest of some of its leaders and should bring about necessary amendments to the NAO before that eventuality. Now, there might be a sense of urgency in the government to change the NAO without further delay.”

However, no official spokesperson of NAB was available at late night on Wednesday; however, close circles of the accountability watchdog opined that NAB was acting according to the law without any discrimination. He said that a propaganda campaign is going on against NAB, but it will not deter resolve of the Bureay to go against the corrupt. He advised the media to refrain from speculations.

Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa has twice underlined incorporation in the NAO of bail facility to the accused persons, arraigned by the anti-graft watchdog. “The concept of bail should be introduced in NAO so that we [superior courts] should not have to use our constitutional powers [to deal with such bail matters].”

In mid-November last, Justice Khosa, who had authored the judgement of the three-member bench led by the then chief justice, had suggested that in the changed scenario, the legislature may, if so advised, consider amending the NAO appropriately so as to enable an accused person to apply for bail before the relevant accountability court in the first instance.

He wrote that the intention behind introduction of Section 9(b) of the NAO, which ousts the jurisdiction of the superior courts regarding grant of bail, already stood neutralised due to opening of the door for bail through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of a high court.

Resultantly, the judge noted, the entire burden is being shouldered by the high courts, which is an unnecessary drain on their precious time. He said that the high courts and the Supreme Court had always felt difficulty in adjusting the requirements of “without lawful authority” and “of no legal effect” relevant to a writ of certiorari [Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution] with the requirements of bail provided in Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Another amendment recommended by Justice Khosa in the same verdict related to revision of the unrealistic timeframe [thirty days] for conclusion of a trial as specified in Section 16(a). It has never happened that an accountability court decided a reference within 30 days.

Another three-judge bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, has stated that if the appropriate amendment [to change the voluntary return (VR) clause] is not done by February this year, the court will give its ruling, and it has jurisdiction to strike down any law, violating the Constitution. The panel heard a case for interpretation of Section 25-A of the NAO, which empowers the NAB chairman to accept VR from an accused, who is even permitted to continue his job without departmental proceedings.

During its talks with the opposition parties, the government had shown keenness to make the three amendments to the NAO relating to the provision of bail facility to the accused, revision of the unreasonable time period of trial by an accountability court and VR. The other side had agreed to these changes but wanted more amendments like reduction in the physical remand period, separation of the prosecutor general’s office from that of the NAB chairman, dilution of the powers of the NAB chief by forming a three-member committee also, including the directors general of law and finance.