The coalition government is trying to make the most of its time in power by amending the rules to benefit its leaders. In the latest move, the national corruption watchdog has been barred from taking action in corruption cases involving an amount below Rs500 million. It shows graft worth Rs500 million, which is a really big amount for most Pakistanis, is not an issue at all for the rulers. As the National Accountability Bureau would not be able to take up cases below Rs500 million, the Federal Investigation Agency, police and anti-corruption departments of provinces, which work at the whim of the federal and provincial governments in Pakistan, the ruling alliance has given itself and future governments a free hand to plunder national resources of the country.

There could have been many flaws in the law related to accountability and the NAB. But, instead of rectifying them, the government aims to defang the NAB and legalise corruption. Even if it was unhappy with the NAB for its past behaviour with its leaders, the coalition government should have taken measures to improve the investigation and prosecution process of other graft-busting bodies. Without doing it, the government aims to give a free hand to politicians and bureaucrats to commit corruption without any fear. It is a great injustice with low-ranking officials and the common people, who are usually involved and get an opportunity to commit corruption worth only thousands of rupee and still have to go to jail.

The way the coalition government has acted since its installation, it appears quashing corruption and money-laundering cases against its leaders is its prime object. However, it will send the wrong signal in the world. Pakistan lags behind even regional countries because of rampant corruption and the absence of the rule of law. The present government has fortified the worst fears about Pakistan.

In the new bill, the government also proposed that the federal government, not the President, should have the power to appoint judges of accountability courts. “A judge shall be appointed by the federal government after consultation with the chief justice of the high court concerned. The service tenure of the NAB prosecutor general can be extended by three years,” it adds. The amended Section 16 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO) states that an accused would be tried for an offence under the ordinance in the court under whose territorial jurisdiction the offence was alleged to have been committed. In an amendment to the Section 19E, the NAB authority to allow surveillance with the help of a high court has been withdrawn, including any assistance from government agencies. “Any person called to provide information in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed will be informed of the allegations against them so they can file their defence in court,” the bill states. Moreover, the NAB chairman has been empowered to recommend the termination of a reference before indictment.

This is the second set of amendments made by the government to accountability laws in a span of a few weeks. Earlier, the ruling alliance amended the National Accountability Ordinance, under which, the NAB’s deputy chairperson will be the head in the absence of the chairman, as is the case now, and he would be appointed by the federal government instead of the President of Pakistan. An officer will have to face five years in jail if an accused is acquitted by courts on the grounds that the case was initiated with mala fide intentions or based on false or fabricated evidence. It will clearly frighten NAB officers and they would hesitate to file cases because white-collar crimes are difficult to prove in courts, even in advanced countries of the world. Also, the NAB’s conviction rate is 66pc, according to its own claim, while experts say it is below 50pc. Even if the NAB figure is accepted, most of its officers will be jailed as 34pc of its accused are freed by courts. The law is also discriminatory in nature because no personnel of police or other law enforcement agencies is punished even if criminal charges against an accused do not prove in a court of law.

Under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) (Amendment) Act, 2022, NAB officers have also been banned from making inquiries or investigations public – otherwise they would have to face a prison term of a year as well as a penalty of Rs1 million. Decisions related to taxes, federal and provincial cabinets, councillors as well as the State Bank of Pakistan no longer fall under the NAB purview. Besides, regulatory bodies formed under the laws of federal and provincial governments have been taken out of the domain of the anti-graft body. The changes include the abolishment of Section 14 that empowered the NAB to penalise individuals on mere suspicion. The NAB chief will be able to issue warrants in case the suspect escaped or there was adequate proof of testimonies being “wasted”.

Under the new amendments, an accountability court would have a judge appointed for three years and cases would be disposed of in a year. For the removal of an accountability court judge, consultations with the chief justice of the high court concerned would be necessary. The most significant amendment was made to Section 24 of NAO 1999, which regulates the NAB chairman’s power of arrest. The NAB chairman’s power of arrest was widely misused in the past. The chairman may issue an arrest warrant during an investigation if the accused is intentionally or willfully not joining the investigation after repeated notices; the accused attempted to abscond; if there are sufficient grounds that the accused may tamper with prosecution evidence and if there is sufficient information about a repetition or continuation of an offence under the ordinance. Likewise, the NAB could detain an accused for 14 days during an investigation. Earlier, the detention period was 90 days.

In the past, superior courts criticised the NAB for its powers of plea-bargain and arrest. The government has changed the law according to its needs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is examining the amendments and it is hoped that it will decide issues related to accountability once and for all, so that an effective and unbiased accountability process continues in the country.