Selective Accountability

By Taha Kehar | February 2020

The PTI has pedalled an anti-corruption narrative for a long time. It condemns the fraudulent practices of politicians, successive governments and public-office holders for weakening Pakistan’s democratic process. When it assumed public office in August 2018, the Imran Khan-led PTI gained the opportunity to eradicate corruption in all its forms and strengthen the culture of accountability.

Weeks after it took over the reins, the PTI introduced a series of initiatives as part of a massive course correction. The federal government constituted an Assets Recovery Unit to retrieve unlawful money stashed abroad by businessmen, government functionaries and politicians. The unit was presided over by the PM’s Special Assistant on Accountability, Shahzad Akbar. Under his supervision, assets worth $5.3 billion acquired through fake bank accounts and money laundering were traced. In a similar vein, the PTI has reshuffled the cabinet twice in the last two years to review the performance of its members and guarantee good governance.

Notwithstanding these strategies to make the ruling elite answerable for their actions, the PTI-led administration has shown mixed results in facilitating across-the-board accountability. A quick glance at the political alignments of those being targeted in the ongoing accountability drive has led analysts to speculate that the process is being used to serve sectional interests. In July 2019, Awami National Party Central President Asfandyar Wali Khan categorically told the media that the federal government is targeting opposition parties under the guise of accountability. In August 2019, Sindh Minister of Information and Archives, Saeed Ghani echoed these sentiments when he drew attention to the ruling party’s “politically-driven” brand of accountability. Ghani also claimed that the PTI was allegedly using the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which is the primary body responsible for the accountability process in the country, to settle personal scores with opposition leaders.

Over the last two years, NAB has been in overdrive and has consistently carried out inquiries on politicians. Though the accountability process set a new record in April 2019 by recovering Rs. 303 billion from corrupt elements, its operations have been scrutinized for its partisanship.

As per the National Accountability Ordinance, the Accountability Bureau enjoys considerable power to conduct inquiries and indict those involved in corrupt practices. In recent years, the NAB chairperson has made active use of his authority and has demanded the arrest of a large number of public office-holders and politicians. More often than not, allegations have been leveled against senior leaders of the PML-N and the PPP – the two major opposition parties – of receiving kickbacks, misusing authority and possessing assets beyond their declared incomes. In June 2019, Faryal Talpur was taken into custody in a case pertaining to money laundering through fake accounts. Similarly, Miftah Ismail, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Maryam Nawaz – who are associated with the PML-N – were sent to jail soon after they were kept in NAB custody. The circumstances of the PML-N leaders’ arrests have raised questions over political victimization.

In an incisive article published in The News (‘NAB: What Accountability?’, October 5, 2019), former Sindh Governor Mohammad Zubair argued that all three leaders were apprehended at a time when preliminary investigation was being conducted on their cases. The former governor also stated that Miftah Ismail, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Maryam Nawaz were duly cooperating with the Bureau and had already been placed on the Exit Control List. The grounds for their arrest therefore, appeared to be somewhat flimsy.

Throughout the article, Zubair illustrated that the Bureau had mishandled the cases of all three PML-N leaders as well as various PPP leaders. As per the article, the underlying intention of this political witch-hunt was to exert undue pressure on opposition politicians and induce them to disengage from the political realm.

The extent of partisanship appears to be somewhat deleterious. When the NAB chairperson was confronted about the selective nature of accountability, he expressed a keen interest in inspecting projects that fall within the purview of the PTI, such as the Peshawar BRT and the Malam Jabba land case. Through an initial inquiry authorized on the Billion Tree Tsunami Project in March 2019, NAB detected losses worth over Rs462 million to the exchequer.

If taken at face value, this development ought to be lauded as an attempt to make the ruling party answerable for its actions and failures. However, recent amendments to the NAB law may negate the overall effect of this move. Under recent modifications to the Ordinance, the ambit of the Bureau’s powers has been significantly reduced. Businessmen, bureaucrats and public office-holders will no longer be investigated by the country’s primary accountability watchdog. To the contrary, NAB will only be able to investigate politicians. As a result, unelected politicos who may invariably belong to the opposition may be subjected to excessive scrutiny.

According to Prime Minister Imran Khan, the changes in the Ordinance will protect businessmen and ensure that they don’t lose market confidence. Shahzad Akbar has defended the amendments to the NAB law as a means of safeguarding innocent people from unnecessary harassment. But these assurances have done little to assuage the concerns of opposition parties. In December 2019, Qaumi Watan Party Chairman Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao claimed that the PTI administration had curbed NAB’s powers to serve its own interests.

Despite these reservations, the NAB Chairperson has upheld the efficacy of the accountability body and stated that officials are indiscriminately taking action against corrupt elements. The chairperson has also declared that the PTI government has not interfered in the anti-corruption watchdog’s affairs.

Amid these mutually contradictory claims, we cannot forget that the culture of accountability and the overall democratic process is under attack. Now that the NAB ordinance has been modified, we must realise that the accountability process shouldn’t be vested in a particular institution or organisation. If the process is being manipulated to orchestrate a political witch-hunt against the opposition, social and political forces must work towards demanding a form of across-the-board accountability that is no prisoner to victimization tactics.

Selective Accountability

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Update