Accountability ordinance

There appears to be a persisting confusion over the issue of consultation with the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. The appointment of the next National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairperson has become a major bone of contention between the government and the opposition and at least three cabinet ministers have been issuing conflicting statements about it. The resignation of NAB’s deputy chairman also signals the fact that not all is well at the accountability watchdog. Now the government has promulgated yet another presidential ordinance to circumvent the normal parliamentary procedure for such legislation. Irrespective of whether the PM or the president consults the opposition leader, the manner in which such ordinance is imposed is a matter of concern. Under the ordinance, the new NAB chairperson will be appointed for a period of four years and his/her term may be extended, as per the amended ordinance. The president will appoint the NAB chair in consultation with the prime minister and the opposition leader. If there is a failure to reach a consensus, the matter will be referred to a parliamentary committee formed for the matter of the appointment.

The new ordinance will be seen as controversial as it will strengthen accountability courts for the speedy trial of corruption cases with day-to-day hearing of corruption cases – and power to grant or reject bails. The ordinance for amending the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 has been generating debate in and out of parliament for quite some time. NAO is the law that provided for the setting up of NAB in the first place. Now that the ordinance has been signed, it will allow the tenure of the existing chair to be extended, and also set up a parliamentary committee which could discuss a choice of names if need be. It is uncertain why this has to be done through a presidential ordinance and not debated in parliament which has been in session for the last few days. There may also be controversy over the contents of the new ordinance.

Everything said and done there should be no doubt that the NAB chairperson should be an individual who is not controversial and is acceptable to all sides so that accountability verdicts can be fair and seen as impartial by both the public and the political opposition. Granting an extension will create more controversies than solutions and by doing so the government will add another dubious distinction in its performance that has not been enviable so far in terms of legislation through proper parliamentary procedures. Any extension by means of controversial and unilateral legislation is likely to further reduce transparency of the procedure. To restore the public’s confidence in the accountability process, it is imperative for the government to follow the law for such appointments. The government must fulfil the condition for bipartisan consultations to avoid more political controversies. The PML-N has said it is quite willing to consider any names put before it but is not ready to agree to a law which allows the tenure of a sitting chairman to be extended. The PPP has also called for consultation, and a parliamentary committee if necessary. The insistence that Justice Javed Iqbal will continue in his present post until a replacement is found complicates what is already a complicated scenario. The discrepancy in views between ministers on what is to happen and who is to be consulted further adds to the doubts that are floating around with most people simply seeking a chairperson of NAB who is seen as uncontroversial and able to fulfil his/her duties without allegations of bias that make accountability more or less useless.