Streamlining of accountability

AS both the treasury and the opposition benches have maintained mysterious silence over the crucial issue of stream lining the process of accountability, the judiciary deserves credit for taking necessary measures to stop alleged misuse of the process. In a landmark judgement, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has held that the executive power to arrest a person under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) cannot be exercised unnecessarily or for conducting roving inquiries. It said if an accused is cooperating in the inquiry or investigation and appropriate measures have been taken to ensure his attendance, then in such an eventuality restriction on constitutional rights would be an abuse of the executive power.
It is yet to be seen whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) would opt for an appeal against the verdict or not and in case it challenges the judgment what would be the final outcome. However, the points raised and the justification offered by IHC while issuing restraining order are reflective of saner thinking and, therefore, must be appreciated by all concerned. The judgment exhaustively deals with the powers of arrest of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman, lays down parameters for exercise of this authority and spells out safeguards against excessive and arbitrary exercise of power to detain a person. The verdict comes in the backdrop of frequent allegations of misuse of the authority to arrest the suspects and keeping them behind the bars without production of any evidence of wrongdoing against them. This has happened to many suspects but more affected were opposition political leaders and bureaucrats who worked with them in the past. While no one would oppose the genuine process of accountability as the country cannot make genuine progress or prosper in the presence of widespread corruption, it is all the more important that no one is victimized because of his political affiliation or leanings. The process should be based on absolute transparency and arrests should be made after thorough investigations and unearthing of undeniable evidence. The judgment has highlighted that incompetence, lack of professional expertise and proper training to deal with white collar crime, besides jeopardizing constitutional rights, can have deleterious consequences for the governance system and cause harm to the economy. These should be taken care of.