MATRIX REPORT
Of late Pakistan’s Supreme Court has been quite strident on the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for a multitude of reasons, including the use of NAB for “political engineering.” This censure has come through two cases.
One case related to detailed verdict on a bail petition filed by PML-N leaders Khawaja Saad Rafique and Khawaja Salman Rafique in the Paragon Housing Society case. The 87-page verdict, authored by Justice Maqbool Baqar, contained several critical and poignant remarks on the role of NAB.
Similar comments resonated on July 23 (2020) in a case pertaining to delays in the trial of cases by accountability courts as well as a suo moto review petition on grant of bail to the co-accused in NAB cases.
Observations by the justices of the Supreme Court make an interesting read. MATRIX MAG is reproducing some of those remarks for the benefit of readers (compiled with the help of reports published in the national media)
In the latter case, the three-member bench of the apex court – headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed – made the following remarks while taking exception to the NAB performance while dealing with cases:
· NAB, according to the chief justice, is totally responsible for delaying corruption-related cases, as its officials lack the capability to deal with cases in a professional manner.
· The investigation officers (IOs) lack professional capability to deal with the high-profile corruption cases.
· The chairman NAB should immediately change the investigation team and appoint highly qualified persons having professional experience.
· There is no mechanism available with the anti-graft body that could develop a strong and effective investigation cell for dealing with the corruption related cases.
· The Bureau’s investigation reports are often full of mistakes and these are removed after filing the reference.
· Most of the IOs are not conversant with the legal parameters and consequently the investigation process continues for years.
· The NAB reference lacks quality even it is based on wrong footings with 50 witnesses adding that only one witness is sufficient, provided the reference is made on quality basis.
· NAB forwards half-baked references replete with errors to the accountability courts making it difficult for the courts to decide the cases. The chief justice cautioned the government that it did not have much time since cases are pending for the last 20 years.
· NAB while sending a reference to a court nominates 50 people as witnesses instead of identifying one quality witness. As a result the accused has to spend a life time waiting decision of his case.
The SC verdict in Khawaja brothers’ bail petition case produced similar scathing remarks by honorable judges.
· The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
· In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trail by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.
· The present case is a classic example of trampling of fundamental rights, unlawful deprivation of freedom, and liberty and the complete disregard for human dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution.
· NAB seems reluctant in proceeding against people on one side of the political divide even in respect of financial scams of massive proportion, while those on the other side are being arrested and incarcerated for months and years without providing any sufficient cause even when the law mandates investigations to be concluded expeditiously and trial to be concluded within 30 days.
· Nonetheless, investigation is often not concluded for months and cases remain pending for years. It is because of lack of professionalism, expertise and sincerity of cause that the conviction rate in NAB cases is abysmally low. The above is certainly not serving the national interest, rather causing irretrievable harm to the country, nation and society in multiple ways.
· NAB lacks professionalism, expertise, and sincerity of cause which is the reason behind the conviction rate in NAB cases being abysmally low.
· The NAB Ordinance from its very inception became increasingly controversial, its image has come under cloud and there is a wide spread perception of it being employed as a tool for oppression and victimisation of political opponents by those in power. It is frequently alleged that the Bureau is being flagrantly used for political engineering.
· Indeed, curbing loot, plunder and combating corruption is a noble cause. Nonetheless, the means, process and mechanism employed therefore should be within the parameters as prescribed and mandated by the law and not in derogation thereof.
· The basis on which Chairman NAB decided to proceed in the matter remains unknown. If the purported complaints were the basis, it is not shown as to what exactly was alleged therein, and what information and material was placed before the NAB for it to decide that the nature and conduct of the management of the company fell within the ambit of Section 9 of NAO.
· There is absolutely nothing before the NAB connecting the petitioners with the company so as to hold them responsible for any misconduct, malfeasance and misfeasance of the company, and to prompt NAB to initiate an inquiry or investigation against them.
· NAB has not been able to show any illegality in the transactions and or that the petitioners have dishonestly and unlawfully enriched themselves by way of the same.
· In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
· These laws are successfully employed as tools to change political loyalties, for splintering and fracturing political parties.
· In any event despite having all the required information and details, NAB has failed to place before us any material to show, or to otherwise persuade us to believe that the exchange was unfair and/or that the petitioners have through the said transaction illegally enriched themselves at the cost of the company.
· In any view of the matter since the transaction was between private individuals/entities, who were free agents, and has/had no bearing on any public or governmental interest, no exception to the same could have possibly been taken by NAB.
