Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, in righteous anger, addressed a poorly-attended National Assembly session on Wednesday on National Accountability Bureau (NAB’s) press release issued on Tuesday indicating that it has begun the verification process (undertaken prior to formal approval to investigate by NAB Chairman) of whether former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was involved in sending $4.9 billion to India, based on a “fake” news item appearing in a section of media. Abbasi termed this “pre-poll rigging” which is ironical as he himself engaged in pre-poll rigging by announcing a budget whose applicability will begin a month after the end of his tenure and in which he extended massive income and sales tax benefits, to the tune of 185 billion rupees, while raising taxes by only 93 billion rupees, leaving a revenue decline of 91 billion rupees for next fiscal year that will further widen the budget deficit.
Be that as it may, the entire episode reflects poorly on our parliamentarians, the Prime Minister as well as Asad Umer of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and NAB. The Prime Minister sought the summoning of Chairman NAB before a parliamentary committee, because he had made a serious charge against a man who was three times the country’s prime minister, and asked to reveal the source of his information; he further stated indignantly that “if an institution can make such allegations, then it must be investigated.” Those who may point out that the three-time elected prime minister is facing extremely serious charges in the court and has yet to present documentary proof of his innocence Abbasi thought it advisable to add that “we don’t expect justice from the court. We don’t see justice being dispensed.”
The World Bank clarified that its “Remittances and Migration Report” dated 2016 did not name individuals or mention money laundering, and rightly so as Pakistani laws allowing remitting money abroad legally are more liberal than even in the West; while the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) pointed out that the World Bank report was based on assumptions as data of actual outflows through hundi/hawala are estimates at best. Two questions need a response: first why did it take over two years after the report’s publication to activate a probe or indeed a defence by the government? And given that there is sufficient data of massive money outflows from this country during previous administrations as well as the ongoing tenure of the PML-N, the World Bank estimate is probably not that far out, as our courts and our institutions have also learned in recent years, is next to impossible; and this is all the more so when an allegation of onsending the money abroad is made. It is however relevant to note that choosing to send money to India makes financial sense as India has several products on the market that have a much higher rate of return than in Western countries though this no doubt is being viewed through the prism of national security implications.
NAB’s reactions, through its press releases, are also inexplicable. To cite an opinion piece, not even a news report, in one newspaper is simply irresponsible; but nonetheless NAB sanctimoniously added that it “rejects the impression that its objective was victimization or hurting someone… . The bureau does not believe in taking revenge, but it is determined to eliminate corruption from the country without discrimination.” What does this response do? It raises eyebrows, legitimately, over this being the possible outcome of the narrative of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, repeated almost daily since the hearing in an accountability court began after the Panama Papers verdict by the apex court that targets NAB and its chairman as well as the judiciary.
Finally, we have Asad Umer who showed his own lack of understanding of the entire episode by stating on the floor of the House in response to Prime Minister Abbasi that “if we start investigating institutions based on misuse of power then it will result in justice being murdered… power cannot be misused to manipulate the truth. Therefore, this [parliamentary] committee should not be formed.” NAB chairman is a constitutional position and while it does imply that no government can fire him before the end of his term, though this country has seen many a constitutional position being vacated after the government of the day applies pressure through those institutions that it does control, yet that does not mean no one, and especially parliament, cannot and should not seek an explanation.
Both sides have overreacted. NAB ought to have apologised in its second press release. The Prime Minister has also overreacted to a non-issue by underscoring the need for summoning the NAB chairman to the parliament. PML(N) had ample time at its disposal to change the NAB law; now it is too late.
