In a functional democracy, governance is the main yardstick of the state’s performance for the delivery to its citizens. Governance is driven by the processes of accountability, and transparency. In most under-developed countries, the mechanisms for accountability and transparency are often compromised with a lack of the political will of the ruling establishment; political, executive, civil, as well as military elite. A major hurdle and hindrance in growth of good governance, is the rampant corruption prevailing in Pakistan. It is widely believed that the menace is spread across the public and private institutions at every level, from bottom to top. Unfortunately, those invested with authority to stop its spread are frequently found to be involved in it too, particularly the law enforcement agencies, civil – military bureaucracy, judiciary and the legislative organs of the state. Another widely prevailing perception is that where there are mechanisms to take on the fight against corruption, often only the lower level officials are convicted; meanwhile, politicians and senior bureaucrats involved in mega corruption scandals escape the grip of law. This results in poverty, unemployment, bad governance, and slow foreign investment in the country.
According to the Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Pakistan ranked at 126th position out of a total of 175 countries. The TI further described Pakistan’s CPI score at 29 out of 100. This is the lowest ever, and the country has never achieved this distinction since the first CPI, issued in 1995. Pakistan had secured the score of 28 and was ranked 127th among 177 countries in 2013.[1]The National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS), a project of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) estimates $3.3 billion worth of corruption per year in Pakistan, while a former chairman of NAB estimated corruption to be $ 15 billion per year i.e. Pakistani Rupees 5 to 7 billion per day. Furthermore, the finance minister Senator Ishaq Dar briefed the parliament last year during the budget session that Pak. Rs. $ 200 billion, mostly ill-gotten are stashed in foreign accounts, mainly in Swiss banks.
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is the first global legally binding international anti-corruption instrument, which requires member states to provide their self-assessment reports to gauge their performance against corruption. It also requires that Signatory states to the convention implement several anti-corruption measures, which may affect their laws, institutions and practices. Pakistan is also a signatory to UNCAC, yet, Pakistan has not produced its self-assessment report and rather a peer review is prepared by Norway for Pakistan.
Brigadier (retd) Musadiq Abbasi a former officer of NAB opines that, “Where there is no rule of law, there is danger for accountability and the institutes are decayed. Corruption cannot be eliminated but it can be limited to a threshold. As far as accountability is concerned in the developing world it means only arrests and then no further results. There is a need to change the definition of corruption”. Abbasi, while comparing anti-corruption drive of Pakistan with other countries, stated: “In Iran corruption is regarded as a heinous crime, and anyone convicted in corruption is sentenced to death. Similarly, China too has an iron hand on corruption; officers involved in more than 1 million Yuan corruption are given death sentence”. Abbasi noted: “Awareness, prevention and enforcement are the core elements required for anti-corruption drive, and the awareness needs to be taken to the grass root level”. Moreover, he also stressed on the need to make NAB more independent like the judiciary and the election commission of Pakistan.
What is an effective system to curb corruption?
The accountability mechanisms in all the countries have their pros and cons, and there is no single ‘fit to all’ best model. In order to be effective, Accountability Competent Authorities (ACAs) must not only have a strong legal framework and adequate resources, but should also be incorruptible, liberated from political control, must be able to enforce the anti-corruption laws impartially and have support of a committed political will to curb corruption. Currently, anti-corruption regime is driven by three different patterns in Asia.[2]
- There are only laws in other countries and not a specific ACA
- Combination of laws and multiple ACAs
- Anti-corruption laws implemented through a single ACA
India and Pakistan follow the second pattern; Hong Kong enforces anti-corruption laws through a single ACA, while Japan follows the first pattern. Japan and Hong Kong are regarded as corruption free countries. They score well in the CPIs, Japan was ranked 15th in 2014, whereas Hong Kong was placed at 17th. As far as Japan is concerned, though there are reported cases of corruption at the highest level but generally the people’s perception is positive for anti-corruption regime. India is ranked 87th and as it follows multiple ACAs models, there are issues in jurisdiction and other legal complexities, similarly these complexities arise in Pakistan as well for following the same model.
Hong Kong has one of the best systems when it comes to the cleaning corruption because its performance is the most effective. In 1974 in response to the mounting public outcry, the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) was established as an independent agency to fight corruption which at time seemed impossible to do. However, in its initial three years, the ICAC smashed all corruption syndicates in the public sector, prosecuting corrupt Government officials including police officers.[3]The commission is independent of the Civil Service and is headed by the Commissioner, who is answerable to the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government, and is appointed for a fixed term of 5 years, by the state Council of the Peoples’ Republic of China, on recommendation of the Chief Executive, and the same process and mechanism apply for his removal.[4]
Where does the NAB stand?
A three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja, is seized with a case about the state of affairs in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). It had asked the NAB chairman to appear before it and explain the reasons for perceived delay -foot dragging by the bureau in furnishing statistical data, repeatedly sought by the court to evaluate its performance. The Supreme Court was not surprised when NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry conceded before it on April 9, 2015 that the anti-corruption watchdog lacked a proper monitoring and evaluation system that could help ensure quantitative and qualitative analysis of its performance. “This is a tragedy of immense proportion that NAB does not have any framework,” the court observed and wondered how corruption which was the bane of society could be eliminated, the Dawn newspaper reported.[5]
Since its inception in 1999, NAB has been construed as controversial mainly due to lack of political will, resulting in weak prosecution through political interferences. In 2008, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led government disbanded NAB. Currently, the new accountability bill has also been presented in the parliament. Nonetheless, for the first time since NABs origin its chairman has been appointed by consensus in 2013. This has helped improve the CPI’s score. In a public opinion poll conducted by Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT), in August 2014, 42% people trusted NAB, 30% voted for police, while 29% trusted government officials.[6] The new chairman NAB Qamar Zaman Choudary is considered an activist, since he has tried to reform the NAB, and its performance is 54% better than the last year. During 2014, NAB received a total of 19, 997 complaints, out of which 19, 992 have been processed and completed; whereas in doing so, it recovered $2.62 billion.[7]
NAB is not a single ACA in Pakistan. It follows a multi-layer anti-corruption regime. Primary laws to deal with corruption in Pakistan are the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) 1860, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) 1948, and the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.[8] Two ACAs i.e. the NAB and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) work at the federal level and four ACAs i.e. Anti-Corruption Establishments (ACEs) operate at the provincial level, and are empowered to investigate into various cases of public sector prosecution.
An awareness campaign: “Say No to Corruption”, started by NAB to educate the common citizens, government officials and law enforcement agencies personnel. In this regard, walkathons have been organized, public service messages on driving licenses, and in the form of advertisement prior to movies in the cinemas have started. Similarly, NAB is also expanding and its new regional bureaus. It has opened one in Multan, Punjab, and one in Sukkur, Sindh.
The “Whistle Blowers Act” is also proposed by NAB, which is an obligation on Pakistan under the UNCAC. Whistle blowing is an early warning system in controlling corruption at the prevention stage by taking timely action. It also encourages honesty and complete dedication. Under the Whistle Blower Act, it will be ensured that public interest disclosures are properly assessed, investigated and acted upon. It will promote culture of transparency, integrity and accountability. It will also help in preventing abuse and misuse of available protections for personal advantage or vendettas against the employer.[9]
Chairman NAB claims that much has been done to revamp the NAB, recover the looted money and through arresting the officials involved in corruption. However, there are still allegations that NAB is only after petty thieves, but, big names found in power echelons, frequently reported in media to be involved in mega corruption scandals, remain untouched.
For instance, former President Asif Ali Zardari has cases pending in NAB. There were four pending cases against the former president, in two (Ursus tractors and ARY Gold cases) he got acquitted by the Islamabad Accountability Court in December 2014, while two (SGS and Cotecna references) are still to be decided. It was reported in the media that files of those pending cases went missing from the NAB headquarters.[10] Likewise, current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, the third time Chief Minister of the Punjab province have also cases pending against them by NAB.
Some of the mega corruption scandals of Pakistan’s recent past include Employees Old Age Benefit Institute (EOBI) scam; EOBI former Chairman Zafar Gondal is believed to be involved in the scam of more than RS 34 billion.[11] Rental Power project, the scam of at least RS 50 billion, the Supreme Court had ordered the arrest of former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf involved in the scam but no results to this date.[12]Similarly, in Ephedrine case (70 billion RS) and OGRA scam (RS 82 billion) the NAB could not bring culprits to justice, and all of the above mentioned cases happened in the PPP rule 2008-2013. Most recently the NAB has started investigation into case of Metro bus project, started by the ruling political party, Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz.
On paper NAB looks reformed, transparent and going after anyone involved in corruption. However, there is an opposite side of the coin as well; the manner in which the Chairman NAB is appointed, therefore NAB’s own accountability remains a matter of debate. After the 20th amendment of the constitution of Pakistan leader of the house and leader of the opposition after consultation appoint the heads of federal institutes. Presently the leader of the house is PM Sharif, and the leader of the opposition is PPP’s Khurshid Shah. It is widely believed that the two parties are not sincere in firmly taking up the alleged corruption charges and cases against each other.
Conclusion
AS far as NAB is concerned in Pakistan’s anti-corruption drive, there is still a greater transparency required. Effective website, annual reports and monthly newsletters must also be made public as they have right to information. Moreover, NAB recovery of stolen assets is also a test case. Further in this regard the effectiveness of transparent and accountable system is also a pre-requisite to fight corruption.
Legal experts feel that there is also the need to revisit some sections of the NAB ordinance, for instance section 25, section 33 and section 31-b. Section 25 deals with the Voluntary return (plea bargain) of the looted money, thus giving the chairman NAB power to release the accused, with approval of the appellate court. Section 31-b, provides for the withdrawal of cases with the consent of court, by the Prosecutor General. Meanwhile, section 33 deals with the transfers of pending cases. These sections of the accountability ordinance are often misused and abused to create ways for the culprits to escape scot free.[13]
Other steps include, NAB shall ensure investigation and prosecution of corrupt officials and politicians without seeking government’s approval, parallel jurisdictions need to be withdrawn, and all cases of corruption must be handled by a single ACA. To gain public support, NAB has to move in a just and fair manner to achieve convictions, particularly in high profile cases. Moreover, these convictions should also be publicized regularly.
Currently, a renewed but cautious optimism is emerging, given the performance of NAB in comparison to the preceding years. But will it last? Will it deliver? And will the NAB be reformed in real sense; cleanse of any sort of political interference, be it through appointments at the highest level, or affecting the prosecution? Only time will tell the real effectiveness of the institute.
By: Abbas Ahmad, CRSS Research Fellow
[1] Dawn, December 3, 2014 http://www.dawn.com/news/1148425
[2]Munir Ahmad, Accountability Structures: A comparative Analysis, PILDAT, April 2015
[3]Transparency International, “Corruption Perception Index, 2014
[4] Anti-Corruption Authorities, “Independent Commission against Corruption: Profiles Hong Kong, China, SAR, 2014
[5]Dawn, April 10, 2015 http://www.dawn.com/news/1175019/nab-admits-it-does-not-have-proper-monitoring-evaluation-system
[6] PILDAT, Public Opinion Poll, http://www.pildat.org/
[7] NAB, Annual Report, 2014 http://www.nab.gov.pk
[8]Sections 160-165, “Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act, “FIA, 1947, National Accountability Ordinance,“NAB, 1999
[9] NAB, Press Release, 31 January, 2015 http://www.nab.gov.pk/PRESS/NEW.ASP?886
[10]Dunya TV, February 26, 2015 http://dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/Pakistan/263727-Record-of-corruption-cases-against-Zardari-disappe
[11]The News, August 01, 2013 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-193615-NAB-protected-EOBI-culprits-for-Rs3438-billion-corruption-documents-reveal
[12]Khaleej Times, October 21, 2013 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/October/international_October1145.xml§ion=international
[13] For details see National Accountability Ordinance 1999