Don’t kill the messenger!

ISLAMABAD: NAB has again chosen to attack Jang Group and this correspondent in a bizarre manner for publishing a statement issued by the former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

The News and this correspondent just played the role of messenger but the NAB appears to have developed the habit of trying to kill the messenger instead of looking into its own flaws and weaknesses. The very reading of NAB clarification shows that the media wing of the Bureau is no different from other sections of the organisation and direly needs a refresher course to improve its working and learn how to interact with the media organisations. The story in question did not include any comment or addition from this correspondent but simply contained what the former Prime Minister had said in response to a story carried by this newspaper a day before and levelled allegations against Abbasi and his family while quoting an investigation report of NAB.

The NAB spokesman or its top management did not give any response to the earlier story which was defaming the former PM and his family but it reacted angrily against The News and this scribe for publishing Shahid Abbasi’s response.

NAB dubs The News story as part of what it called “systematic propaganda campaign being spearheaded by the Jang Group” against the Bureau, and questioned why Shahid Abbasi’s statement against NAB’s allegations (reported in the earlier story) was published without getting the Bureau’s version.

The Bureau believes that the Jang Group and this correspondent deliberately damage the repute of NAB. Interestingly not dozens but hundreds of statements have been issued by political leaders against NAB and its working in the past but NAB never demanded before what it now demands from the Jang Group in the case of Shahid Abbasi’s statement, which in actual was the former premier’s reply to NAB’s allegations (reported a day earlier by Zahid Gishkori but not denied by the Bureau).

Regarding NAB’s repute, the Bureau’s spokesman and its top management are advised to seriously review its performance and get their house in order instead of finding faults in others. For the pleasure reading of the NAB management, the following are few citations of what the superior judiciary thinks of NAB:

The Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed recently said that NAB had become an obstacle to the role it had to play for the betterment of the country.

The purpose for which NAB was established was over, he said. He remarked that the NAB had become an exploitation firm as they put up prisoners for years in prison. Later, its own employees stated that the man was guilty, he added. The Chief Justice said that NAB should be fined billions of rupees and this penalty amount should be collected from NAB employees as the government would not give a single rupee.

He remarked that NAB did not have the ability to work.

He observed that NAB’s investigating officers simply did not have the capacity to carry out investigation to its logical end.

Former Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had also expressed the fear that growing perception of “lop sided process of accountability” needed urgent remedial measures to save from losing credibility.

“We, as a re.levant organ of the state, also feel that 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 then CJP had said while speaking at the opening ceremony of the new judicial year 2019-2020.

Another former CJP Mian Saqib Nisar had once criticised NAB Chairman Justice (R) Javed Iqbal in a hospital construction case and summoned him in his chambers before asking him whether “everyone is a thief except for the probe body”. While getting discontented over the NAB’s criteria for accountability, the top judge said: “One plea comes in and they (NAB officials) start disparaging people.” “Is there a standard for the NAB’s investigation process or not?”, said the then CJP. Justice Nisar had said that the bureau starts inquiry in every matter and stalls any progress in the system. “What if we start issuing warrants of the NAB people and see how it impacts their reputation,” asked the top judge. The then top judge was also reported by the media to have said, “The NAB chairman should appear before the court. One petition comes and they drag people’s name through the mud; is everyone except NAB a thief?”

LHC in a recent case pertaining to Ramzan Sugar Mills was so disappointment from the performance of the Bureau’s prosecutor that it had to sarcastically observe, “Considering the standards of your inquiry, you should all be given the Pride of Performance Award.”

In another case Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Ahmed Ali Shaikh expressed dissatisfaction over the NAB performance. While hearing the bail pleas of two accused, Zulfiqar and Majeed, the CJ expressed discontentment over the NAB Investigation Officer (IO). “When did you become the IO? What is your qualification,” questioned CJ Shaikh. The NAB official replied that he had joined the department in 2017. “What do you know about the law? You do not even know about the SHC’s judgment,” CJ Shaikh remarked. The court also expressed anger at the NAB prosecutor Riaz Alam in the case.

In a PUNJMIN mining contract reference, it was the LHC (and not the Jang Group or Ansar Abbasi) which recently while accepting the bail application of Muhammad Subtain Khan, the then Minister for Mines and Minerals, had pointed out serious flaws in Bureau’s decision making even at the highest level and noted: “But surprisingly without bringing on record any fresh ground or to digging out any hidden truth, the inquiry was reinitiated on the same allegations vide letter dated 26.04.2018 issued by the DG NAB. The reasons and circumstances were, apparently, neither brought before the Chairman NAB nor he had formed opinion on the basis of material. He had just ordered the re-opening of inquiry without holding any official of the NAB responsible for closure of the inquiry.

It is not the whims and designs unsubstantiated by the fresh disclosed facts on the basis of which it could re-open the closed inquiry in a slipshod manner. The reasons, if any, are shrouded in mystery. Needless to observe here that with greater powers always lays the greatest responsibilities.

The powers of the Chairman are also structured by law and conscience, and therefore, he must be guided by them and not by unperceived perception infatuated by his subjective approach so as to use his discretion for taking some kind an imaginary blaming act.

The prosecution has not alleged that the petitioner has got any kickbacks, made financial gains or caused any corresponding loss to the State.”

In the LNG case, the IHC recently while admitting the bail application of former MD PSO Sheikh Imranul Haq, had pointed out the sheer incompetence of NAB, how the cases are made on the basis of mere “conjectures”, lack of Bureau’s capacity to probe such matters, arbitrary use of NAB law provisions, violation of fundamental rights and that standard global business practices are treated by the anti-graft body as corruption and corrupt practices. The IHC in its order wrote, “We have noted in several cases that the investigations are not carried out by experts fraud examiners or investigators or data mining experts. We had also not come across any case like the one in hand where chartered accountants or trained professionals in matters relating to white-collar crime may have been associated during the inquiry or investigation.

The capacity and professional competence of investigators is inevitable to deal with matters relating to white-collar crime. The object for which the Ordinance of 1999 was enacted can only be achieved if the alleged crime is investigated by professionals who are trained as experts in white-collar crime.

The case in hand appears to be a classic example of the violation of the guaranteed rights of a citizen. The investigation reports placed on the record and the written comments filed in this case speak volumes for the competence and capacity of the Bureau to investigate white collar crime.”

In the cases like Saaf Pani Project, Ramazan Sugar Mills and Ashiana Housing Scheme-the three corruption cases made by the National Accountability Bureau against Shahbaz Sharif and others-the LHC found “malafide” on part of NAB. In all the three cases, the LHC found no abuse of authority or violation of law, rules and procedure. Rather court held that no corruption, kickback, commission or illegal gratification was alleged even by NAB. The corruption watchdog had alleged abuse of authority and illegalities against former three times Chief Minister and his key bureaucratic aides but failed to prove any allegation.

There are many other court references against NAB, whose management and its spokesman need to understand that media report the events/facts as they are. The story in question was done professionally. Yet, the NAB is welcome to consider any legal course against the Jang Group or this correspondent. The News does approach the NAB and its spokesman where its version is required. However, in such cases rarely do the NAB responds.

For example the NAB spokesman has been approached several weeks back for his version on a story this correspondent is working on. But despite repeated messages and spokesman’s commitment, the NAB is not coming up with its response. The News stands by its story.