Erasure of controversial provisions of NAB law

ISLAMABAD: Complete silence prevails between the government and opposition parties over starting talks on introducing amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law and other legislative work in parliament.

“There is no contact, whatsoever, between the two sides since long on the issue of law-making to make parliament do its actual work and to not continuously remain redundant and irrelevant,” said Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senior leader and former Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq when approached by The News.

A heavy legislative agenda is pending disposal in the National Assembly, which can’t be cleared without a consensus between the government and opposition parties.

Record shows that the government has laid 27 presidential ordinances and introduced 46 bills in the National Assembly. Besides, there are 137 private members’ bill awaiting approval.

They also include the legislation relating to establishment of the Naya Pakistan Housing Authority to give a legal cover to the government’s flagship project. The relevant ordinance has been extended by the National Assembly to save its expiration.

Ayaz Sadiq said that several weeks back, the government had agreed in principle to discuss substantial amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), but there has been no movement forward on opening the dialogue to evolve an agreement.

“On our part, we are not keen or in a hurry to bring about amendments to the NAO because we have massively suffered due to its certain draconian provisions. They should be the concern of the ruling coalition that is going to face them,” he said.

The former speaker said that there has been a talk about holding negotiations on the NAO on March 5 but no intimation has been received by the opposition parties.

In the absence of meaningful parleys, he said, every session of the National Assembly is consumed in discussing perfunctory matters while the legislative business remains on the backburner.

A number of sets of amendments to the NAO are on the table but lack of initiative and willingness has kept the two sides at a bay to engage in worthwhile deliberations to work out an accord.

The government has its own changes that it wants to insert in the NAB law. It has already promulgated some of them through presidential ordinances, which are yet to get parliamentary approval. Additionally, it plans to make some more changes in the NAO.

Secondly, the Supreme Court has recommended some amendments, including empowering the accountability courts to grant bails to the NAB accused in order to reduce unnecessary burden on high courts; doing away with the specified period of 30 days for disposal of the references; and changing the clause pertaining to the plea bargain and voluntary return.

Moreover, a bill suggesting amendments to the NAO, moved by former Law Minister and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Farooq H Naek in the Senate, which has been cleared by the Upper House of Parliament, is also available for discussion in the government-opposition negotiations.

It says the concept of plea bargain and voluntary return be made in line with modern jurisprudence of superior courts. It should be carried out through court and a person availing it would not contest election but would not be jailed. “Powers of arrest be taken away from the NAB chairman/officials, who will not authorise detention at all, let alone for 90 days. There is no need of custodial investigation as the probe can be carried out and a person can be questioned in the NAB office without being detained overnight. Custodial investigation is against freedom and right of life of a person.”

The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has also declared several clauses of the NAO un-Islamic and found the NAO in violation of Islamic laws. It said handcuffing is allowed only when there is a likelihood of violence or retaliation from the accused. The publishing and broadcasting names of any accused in the media before they are proved guilty is against the teachings of Islam and NAB should desist from such practice.

The opposition parties also recommend that there should not be a special remand period for NAB accused, and it should be normal as is available in other criminal cases. They say the 90-day remand period is nothing but torture of those arrested by NAB.

They also demand that concentration of all powers in the NAB chairman should be dispensed with, and, instead, a committee should be constituted to exercise this authority to ensure transparency.