The PPP government introduced a new accountability law, the National Accountability Commission Bill 2012, into the National Assembly on Monday, brushing aside not just opposition PML-N’s protests, not just the objections of the ANP, a coalition partner, but also the earlier accountability law, which had gone through 30 standing committee meetings, but had not been reported back to the House. The PML-N, which had been resisting the earlier law in committee, argued that there has to be an explanation of why the bill was being brought in by the government. However, the Chair duly referred the bill to committee. The bill is not getting special treatment like the Contempt Act, but Law Minister Farooq Naek wanted the bill reported back by October 11. Considering that the government had introduced the Holders of Public Office (Accountability) Bill on 15 April 2009, while the relevant standing committee, that on Law and Justice, had passed a draft in April, the need for the new bill is not easily understood.
The bill moved, if passed, might not pass any challenge that might be made in the Supreme Court, because it includes a number of clauses which go beyond the present NAB Ordinance, which it is meant to replace. It also includes certain clauses which lead it to be concluded that it is the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) all over again. It is not enough that the chairman of the new commission may be a former government servant, which would allow the present NAB Chairman to retain his job, but there is also a permanent exemption, making offences no longer cognizable after 10 years. Not only does this provide the first ever limitation for a crime, but it also allows a large number of present-day politicians, to escape prosecution. For example, the charges against the President about which the government should have written, according to the Supreme Court judgement in the NRO case, fall within this exemption. This raises the question of whether the bill is meant for accountability or to save a single individual.
It should be kept in mind that any legislation designed for a few, rather than taking into account the needs of all, both present and future, will be bad. Therefore, other government allies, like the PML-Q and the MQM, also have a duty to oppose a piece of legislation which is not just ill intentioned, but likely to be struck down by the courts anyhow.