Amendments to NAB law: Unknown fears impeding start of meaningful dialogue

ISLAMABAD: Before the impending talks with the opposition, the government has pushed the amendments, sheltering public officeholders and bureaucrats, in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law through the National Assembly that has not gone well with the opposition parties.

“A broad understanding has been reached that a package of amendments to be incorporated in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) will be prepared by amalgamating the changes proposed by the two sides, the Supreme Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII),” a senior opposition leader told The News.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stalwart Rana Sanaullah said that even prior to the likely parleys, the approval of amendments from the National Assembly amid the opposition’s protest is incomprehensible.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) holds the similar view and stresses that a bill recommending amendments in the NAO sponsored by former Law Minister Senator Farooq H. Naek has to be taken into consideration during the talks because it contains far-reaching proposals.

Informed circles say senior government and opposition representatives would meet next week to mull over at least four sets of amendments to be included in the NAO. The plan is to largely defang the NAB law even if some of the key proposals were opted for.

There is a willingness on both sides to considerably amend the NAO as they hold no brief for it, but still they are shying away from engaging in meaningful talks at an early date.

The opposition leader said that the amendments now bulldozed through the National Assembly would not be approved by the Senate unless there was a comprehensive agreement between the two sides on the package of changes in the NAO to remove its draconian provisions.

Although the opposition had publicly rejected the amendments, which have now been passed, when they were promulgated through a presidential ordinance, terming them an NRO for the favourites of the government, most of its leaders have not been opposed to them during private discussions because they also cover the public officeholders.

These amendments lay emphasis on any monetary gain of a public officeholder “disproportionate to known sources of income” have got from an act for taking them out of the NAB’s domain. They repeated that no action will be taken against any public officeholder unless it is shown that he has materially benefited by gaining any asset or monetary benefit which is disproportionate to his known sources of income or where such material benefit cannot be reasonably accounted for and there is evidence to corroborate such benefit.

Such stress is intended to make it mandatory for the NAB not to touch officials and public officeholders, who have not monetarily gained from any act done in the performance of their official duty.

A host of references filed by the NAB in accountability courts and inquiries and investigations being carried out by it relate to the assets beyond known sources of income against several persons, who are not accused of corruption in acts done by them in their official capacity. The NAB has admitted before trial courts for a number of times that the arraigned persons had not committed any corruption but were guilty of inflicting damage to the national exchequer.

All the accused, who are facing trials and are in jail or on bail but are not charged with committing corruption, have been arraigned for procedural lapses or irregularities. They are now invoking the new amendments to get relief even from the concerned courts.

The amendments provided that trials pertaining to federal or provincial taxation, levies or imposts will stand transferred from the relevant accountability courts to the criminal courts which deal with offences under the respective laws relating to such matters.

Like trials, all inquiries and investigations into such matters will also stand shifted to the respective authorities or departments which administer the relevant laws of taxation, levies or imposts.

Thus, retrospective effect has been given to take such inquests by the NAB and references filed in the accountability courts without mentioning the term “retrospective effect” in the amendments.

Another important amendment says nothing will be construed as misuse of authority by a public officeholder unless there is corroborative evidence of accumulation of any monetary benefit or asset which is disproportionate to his known sources of income or which can’t be reasonably accounted for.

The statement of objects and reasons of the just passed amendments says under the existing accountability regime a number of inquiries have been initiated against the public officeholders and government servants on account of procedural lapses where no actual corruption is involved. This has enhanced NAB’s burden and has also affected working of the federal government. The NAB, while assuming parallel jurisdiction, is also inquiring into matters pertaining to taxation, imposition of levies etc., and therefore interfering within the domain of taxation regulatory bodies.