Accountability in Pakistan and the role of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Accountability in Pakistan and the role of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

‘Accountability’ (in Urdu, Ehtisab) is the buzzword of the current government, and it was the slogan of the ruling party before the 2018 elections. It is for certain not the first government that has embarked on this ambitious agenda. We had many Prime ministers and presidents in the past that dreamed of corruption-free Pakistan. But all in vain. Some argue that they did that only for solidifying their political positions, just as Imran khan is doing nowadays. Well, it is an undisputed truth that in the past such endeavors were mainly aimed at harassing political opposition leaders and seeking out their submission, as history suggests as well. Can the same be said for the recent political leadership? What is the role of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in all this? Is there any nexus between the Government and NAB? Does this law (NAB ordinance) act like its predecessors? Let’s find its answers in the succeeding paragraphs.

Also Read: The transformation of Maulana Abul A'la Maududi

A Brief History of Accountability in Pakistan.

Under the supervision of then Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali khan, the government promulgated ‘Public Representative Offices Disqualification Act’ (PRODA) on January, 1949. It was meant to check corruption and misuse of authority with effect from 14^th August 1947, along with holding the common people and politicians accountable.  As it always happens in the country, this act proved a death warrant to the careers of many seasoned politicians. The then chief minister of Punjab, Nawab Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot was prosecuted against this act. Soon his government was sent packing on the charges of corruption. In a similar attempt, Pir Illahi Bux, then CM of Sindh, was also sent to home. What is more, East Pakistan's chief minister, AK Fazal ul Haq, also met the same fate. In this way, the main political figures came under the ax of accountability.

PRODA could not live much after its creator and subsequently was repealed in 1954. But in 1959, President Ayub khan replaced it with a new law called Public Offices Disqualification Act (PODA) and then Elective Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO). Ayub khan’s PODA and EBDO were also infamous for the same purposes. Initially, PODA got a great success, and the country got control of corruption. Many bureaucrats were prosecuted under this law. There was a state of terror regarding corruption among the office-bearers. But the EBDO tarnished its gains. After the introduction of the basic democracy system, it was massively used against political leaders on similar patterns of PRODA. It targeted many politicians across the parties that were opposed to “One Unit”. As many as 7000 individuals were EBDOed, as per the estimation.

Also Read: The Message of Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai

The role of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

Much similar to the refrain everyone presently hears, General Parvez Musharraf promised to get back looted money stashed abroad. In this context, he set up the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to probe and prosecute officials involved in corruption. On account of its charter, that is, NAB ordinance 1999, this institute was presumed to be an autonomous entity. Contrary to this, it was largely staffed by serving and retired military officials. Even bizarre, the heads of NAB under Musharraf were all serving generals. To add more, national and international human rights groups often accused this dog-watch institute of only going after those who were in the opposition camp and reluctant to cooperate with it. The International Crisis Group (ICG), in its 2002 report on Pakistan’s transition to democracy, termed the Musharraf government’s accountability process the ‘marred and selective targeting of the government’s civilian opposition. It has also been alleged that NAB pressurized some of the politicians at the time of 2002 elections, using its threat of investigation to force them into joining pro-government parties. Not surprisingly, some cases were withdrawn after the accused agreed to join the government. The names of two seasoned politicians of PPP, Aftab Sherpao and Faisal Saleh Hayat are conspicuous in this aspect. Against this background, one may also relate some of the events happening before the general elections of 2018. So suffice it say that anti-corruption drive simply became a handy tool to tame politicians and muster support for the regime.  Under this situation, the role of NAB in eliminating corruption is heavily under question.

What is Now?

-National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

The same Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) that are crying hue and cry against the ongoing campaign of accountability were once ardent supporter of accountability in their respective ruling times. If one can take the notice of the 1990s decade politics, one will surely know how dirty politics was reigning the supreme. But once their positions switch from opposition to treasury benches, they blame each other for the “selective accountability”. One may also hear the same complaints from both parties. This time not against each other but against another party. No matter what the time, this cycle is unabating and it is anybody’s guess how long it will continue? Will this drive spearheaded by NAB subdue with the passage of time, as was the case with PRODA, PODA, and EBDO? 

Also Read: 13 Things Mentally Strong People Don’t do

But one thing is for certain here, those who are being prosecuted would never cherish the idea of accountability. Though NAB operates somewhat aggressively because of its overriding authority, to which opposition call the ‘black law’, its performance over the past few years has been extraordinarily phenomenal. Unlike Musharraf’s government, its heads are now chosen by a broad consensus of the government and the opposition. Most recently, it is headed by a retired Judge. I,n the current scheme of things, it can be implicated that NAB is an absolute devoid of any ghost intervention. Its style of working is mandated through its ordinance. If the opposition had reservations, it must have amended its ordinance when it was at the helm. If China got rid of the corruption, it was primarily because of its bold measures and repressive tactics. If history is any guide, the only way forward to phase out corruption is ruthlessness, zero-tolerance policy, and across-the-board accountability, which at the moment are lacking on the part of PM Khan’s government.