Friday, November 13, 2009

Ansar Abbasi's Romance: National Accountability Bureau & NAB Ordinance.

Most of the NRO beneficiaries, whose corruption and criminal cases would re-open on Nov 28, will not be able to get pre-arrest bails as their offences under the NAB Ordinance are non-bailable, NAB officials told The News. NAB Prosecutor General Danishwar Malik, when contacted, confirmed to The News that all offences under the NAB Ordinance were non-bailable. He said trial courts (accountability courts) had no authority under the law to entertain bail applications of any NAB accused. It was never done in the past either, he said. About the non-bailability of offences under the NAB Ordinance, its Section 9(b) reads: “All offences under this ordinance shall be non-bailable and, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 1, 426, 491, 497, 498 and 561A or any other provision of the code, or any other law for the time being in force no court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any person accused of any offence under this ordinance.” REFERENCE: Beneficiaries of NRO cannot get bail: NAB By Ansar Abbasi Friday, November 13, 2009

Mr Ansar Abbasi is also very fond of Treason Trial against General Pervez Musharraf under article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan: REFERENCES: Why Musharraf should be prosecuted By Ansar Abbasi Monday, August 10, 2009 High Treason Cases against Pakistani Military Dictators & Collaborators/Abettors
Alleged Trial of General Pervez Musharraf!
Trial of Musharraf, Treason, Lawyers Movement & Judiciary. High Treason Case against General Musharraf : 12 Oct 1999 or 3 Nov 2007
Collaborators of General Zia's Quasi Martial Law Regime 1985 - 1988

The funniest thing in all that is that National Accountability Bureau and all the Ordinances thereing were invoked by General Pervez Musharraf after imposing Martial Law in Pakistan on 12 Oct 1999, even more funnier is a fact that a Supreme Court Bench of which present Chief Justice of Pakistan was a member, had declared that Martial Law of 1999 was valid.

For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections. So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water. REFERENCE: Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Islamabad diary by Ayaz Amir Dated Friday, August 07, 2009

Watch BBC Documentary on 12 Oct 1999 Martial Law in Pakistan and please do watch while keeping in mind the Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Please also note as to what the BBC Correspondent has to say about Judiciary. REFERENCE: Courtesy: Mr Wusatullah Khan, Correspondent BBC, فوجی بغاوت کے دس سال

As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan



6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.


Definition of Accomplice: An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

The National Accountability Bureau is Pakistan's apex anti-corruption organization. It is charged with the responsibility of elimination of corruption through a holistic approach of awareness, prevention and enforcement. It operates under the National Accountability Ordinance-1999, with its headquarter at Islamabad. REFERENCE:

Critique on National Accountability Bureau and NAB Ordinance:

Blatant violations of Human Rights of the innocent civilians have started under the new draconian black law called National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. Whose prime target are the innocent civilians caught among the corrupt and branded as corrupt without any proof. They are being victimized and kept in illegal protective custody in sub human conditions on suspicion of charges by the armed forces for an indefinite period of time without a charge sheet, while the law of National Accountability Bureau only permits for arresting the accused on suspicion of charges for only 90 days. In which the recent example is :

Pakistan Army has manipulated the NAB ORDINANCE to exempt itself and the judiciary from the process of fair accountability thus showing clearly that the army is a third political party in the country bent on subjugating it's political opposition by conducting political accountability rather than a fair process of accountability.

Besides being violation of Article 11 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the Fundamental Rights under the Pakistani Constitution, the ordinance through its attempt to concentrate total Police and Magisterial powers in the hands of an all powerful Dictator Policeman, has made a mockery of the Principles of the Rule of Law and National Justice.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence for a transparent system, is the division of power between the Police and the Magistracy. Experience the world over has shown that the powers of police unless checked by a vigilant and an empowered magistracy leads to an abuse of individual liberty and violation of Human Rights.

The NAB Ordinance has removed the balance that existed in the previous Ehtesab Ordinance and which had, despite its weaknesses, balanced the powers of the Ehtesab Bureau and placing it under the Magisterial authority of the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, who was equivalent or was qualified to be a judge of the Supreme Court.

Under the existing Criminal law and direction of the Superior Pakistani Courts from time to time, police or investigative custody is not permitted beyond a normal 7 days, extendable under very special circumstances to 14 days. But keeping an accused under Police/Investigative custody for 90 days is a violation of all known practices and the law in such matter.

If the Ordinance entails a period of 75 days for completion of investigations, what is the need to keep an accused for 90 days?

The reports coming out of Pakistani Police Station show that many persons have been detained under Police custody for much more than 90 days. In most cases no one has questioned them, while they are forced to remain either under solitary confinement combined with sub-human living conditions reminiscent of Turkish jails at the end of the last century or are threatened that their release is dependant upon payment of a pre-determined sum of money. The latter aspect amounts to extortion by the Military. The impact of the above inhuman practices is amplified when one notes that this piece of the so called law, the NAB Ordinance, does not contain a single provision of bail under section 9 (b) to prevent the Superior Courts from intervening Section 32(c)(d), Section 33(b) and other Anti-Democratic/ Rule of Law Deviations?

Many Human Rights Activists have seriously challenged the NAB Ordinance for being retroactive in nature. Although the Military Regime notified it in November 1999, yet it covers actions which were not offences since 1985. A serious flaw negating Human Rights is the creation of new offences which were not so defined, when those acts occurred in the past. In this connection Section 9(vii) of the NAB Ordinance can be cited. It has made it an offence since 1985, all those instances where the government may have notified changes in Govt. Duties/Rebate structure through a Statutory Regulatory Order. It is open to serious questions of rationality whether the Ordinance can challenge the Government's rights to regulate economic policy to generate growth. It is now becoming clearer with each passing day that the Army wants to squeeze out civil society and civilian institutions. The Directorate of Military Operations of the Pakistan Army is working full time to replace civilian controls with military ones over key Pakistani civil organizations. Some of the recent examples are:

The target list of those to be hit under the NAB Ordinance is jointly prepared by the D.G. Military operations/I.S.I. ,the Military Intelligence Service and NAB (National Accountability Bureau.) Military officers, without any requisite training or back ground have become the handlers of the government departments which are under civilian control. Large scale induction of Army personnel is taking place in civilian organization like F.I.A./Police etc. The Judges of the Superior Courts who refused to take an oath of loyalty to the Army Chief, have been removed. Previously judges took oath under the Constitution.

Mr Shaheen Sehbai [present Group Editor of The News International & Celebrity of GEO TV]'s memory should be refreshed that he used to give ample space in his web based magazine South Asia Tribune [based and founded in USA when Shaeen Sehbai escaped from Pakistan and found self imposed exile] to the Former Pakistani Senator Mr Farhatullah Babar (PPP) who is now spokesman for the President of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. I am reproducing the article by Mr Farhatullah Babar on NAB Ordinance and published in Shaheen Sehbai's US Based Internet Magazine South Asia Tribune. There is a riddle here to be solved i.e. Who is to be believed? Ansar Abbasi who is quoting Illegal NAB Reports, Shaheen Sehbai who is conducting Media Trial for the accountability of Asif Ali Zardari and if that is so then why Shaheen Sehbai was allowing to publish columns of Mr Farhatullah Babar and that too against NAB. If Farhat and Zardari are wrong today then why they were so acceptable to Shaheen Sehbai in the past? MORE ON SOUTH ASIA TRIBUNE & SHAHEEN SEHBAI: What is Shaheen Sehbai’s Game? November 13, 2009 at 7:02 am Trying to Knock out Zardari and Army Simultaneously?


WASHINGTON DC, Aug 3, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057

ISLAMABAD, August 3: Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau has often been accused of being more of a tool for political victimization than an instrument of accountability. The draconian provisions of the NAB Ordinance and the selective manner in which these have been applied has also come under criticism. But, politics apart, let us take a look at the NAB from the vantage point of Parliament.

On December 5, 2003, a question was asked about the military officers working in civil departments against whom cases had been registered by the NAB during the previous two years. The 14 military officers on the list included a former lieutenant general heading a civil department, as being "under investigation for accumulating assets beyond his means." The endless investigations apparently still continue, while the lieutenant general roams free, unlike politicians under investigation.

Another question on the same day was about the expenses on foreign trips made by NAB officials. Forty-eight foreign trips had been undertaken by NAB officers at public expense during the previous two years, costing over Rs10 million. One senior officer alone made 16 foreign trips that cost the exchequer some Rs3.3 million.

Twenty-five of these visits were undertaken for participation in seminars, conferences and conventions in various world capitals. The officials made three trips to Riyadh and Dubai to attend Pakistan Day celebrations, to make presentations to the Pakistan Executive Group, and to address members of PPF, whatever that means.

A senior officer of the Bureau, during several journeys to European countries, also traveled to Dubai ten times, the purposes of the trips not being explained in most cases. While visits at public expense to world capitals for "attending conferences and seminars" may be understandable, what purpose did the ten trips to Dubai serve?

On Dec. 9, 2004, Senator Sanaullah Baloch asked how much money had been recovered under plea bargains from politicians and civil and military officers on the orders of the court. It was revealed that whereas an amount of Rs432 million had been recovered from politicians, nearly two billion rupees had been recovered from the civil-military bureaucracy under pleas bargain. Who said the politicians were the most corrupt segment of society?

On Dec. 2, 2004, a questions was asked about the status of NAB cases against sitting members of Parliament, if any. Nine sitting MPs were named against whom there were cases of corruption, misuse of authority and accumulation of assets beyond their known sources of income.

Some of the cases were under trial, some under investigation, some"under process," whatever that means, and some closed for undisclosed reasons.

Federal ministers Faisal Saleh Hayat, Aftab Sherpao, Rana Nazir Ahmad, Jehangir Khan Tareen and Liaquat Ali Jatoi were named in the list. All had been the target of the NAB until they joined the King's Party, were rewarded with ministerial jobs and let off the hook.

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Syed Mushahid Hussain, had also been named as being involved in a case of "misuse of authority." The case was closed in May 2002 after over two years of investigation, the government said in its reply.

Just when the opposition asked why cases were closed on the eve of the general elections, Mushahid Hussain rose in the House and challenged the NAB. He stunned everyone by saying that he had not even been informed of any case against him let, alone his being under investigation, and the case closed after such investigations.

A privilege motion was filed against the NAB for misleading the House. The meeting was scheduled for Dec. 22 and the chairman of the NAB summoned to attend it. At midnight on Dec. 21, panic telephone calls by the Senate Secretariat informed the members that the meeting had been cancelled, but no reason was given.

When the meeting was rescheduled for Jan. 6 this year, the chairman of the NAB was exempted and not called to attend it. Does it require too much imagination to guess why the first meeting was cancelled and why the chairman was not asked to attend the rescheduled meeting?

The opposition protested and asked that the meeting be adjourned to another date and the chairman directed to appear in person to answer some questions. As they staged a walkout the government lost no time in rushing through the procedure to reject the privilege motion. Who hides what, and from whom?

During a reply to a question last Feb. 15, it transpired that the NAB had paid Rs390 million as fees to lawyers during the past five years. The expenditure incurred on the boarding and lodging of NAB officers to represent the Bureau in the courts was in addition to this amount.

Various provisions of the NAB Ordinance have been likened by legal experts to the notorious POTA in Indian Kashmir that Pakistan has been condemning at all international forums. But while the POTA has been disbanded the NAB Ordinance continues to be applied with relish.

This emerged in dramatic form when sometime ago the Supreme Court asked the NAB's chief prosecutor whether petitioner Siddiq ul Farooq, the information secretary of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), was in NAB custody and what the status of investigations against him was. In reply, the prosecutor general admitted that the petitioner was in NAB custody. But he added that he could not inform the Court about the case, because after being arrested, Siddiq ul Farooq had been "dumped somewhere," and he did not where he was kept or what the status of investigations was.

The draconian provision requiring an accused to prove innocence has also been applied against the political class with sadistic pleasure. In an interview with The News sometime ago a former chairman of the NAB gleefully remarked that it was not the Bureau's task to prove charges against the corrupt, "the accused must prove his innocence."

A two-dimensional view of the NAB that emerges from the vantage point of Parliament is: One, if after spending nearly Rs400 million on lawyers and over Rs10 million on 48 foreign trips, it is found that civil-military bureaucracy is more corrupt than politicians, although it has the audacity to assert that politicians were more corrupt than others. Two, while the NAB is carrying out investigations -- open or secret -- an accused may roam free, be made a cabinet minister, or "dumped" and forgotten. REFERENCE: Who Will Catch the Corrupt NAB Corruption Catchers By Senator Farhatullah Babar WASHINGTON DC, Aug 3, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057
The writer is a Senator and member of the Defence Committee of the Senate who is active against corruption by the Generals ruling Pakistan. Email: Copyright © 2002-05 South Asia Tribune Publications, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

No comments: