Earlier this month, while no one was really paying attention to the issue, Raja
Why? Did he not illegally appoint 437 people in
This judgment, for all intents and purposes, is the first (of many) such acquittals that are likely to result from the recent NAB amendments made by the PTI government. It is the just the tip of this iceberg of 'compromise' that PTI has made to the very people that the Prime Minister had promised not to spare. In fact, in the days and months to come, the results of these recent amendments in the NAB ordinance are likely to undermine the entire accountability narrative of PTI's government, lending legitimacy to those who claim to have been politically victimized in the process.
Let us pause, therefore, to understand the substance of Raja
Specifically, Reference No. 100/2016 had been filed against Mr.
Those who have seen the evidence claim that this was, proverbially, an 'open and shut case'. Admittedly there no process had been following in appointing these 437 individuals. All appointees were PPP workers and their supporters. Some were direct family members and relatives of local PPP power-brokers. Expressly stipulated process had been ignored, and instead political favors and nepotism had been doled out. In fact, several of the appointees did not even qualify (academically) for the job they were recruited to. And this record stood 'admitted' by all parties to the litigation.
However, on 28.12.2019, the PTI government introduced amendments to the Nab Ordinance. This amendment, inter alia, added an 'explanation' to the offence of 'misuse of authority', under section 9(a)(vi) of the NAB Ordinance. Specifically, the amendment stipulates that 'For the purpose of this clause, nothing shall be construed as misuse of authority by a holder of public office unless there is corroborative evidence of accumulation of any monetary benefit or asset which is disproportionate to his known sources of income or which cannot be reasonably accounted for.' In other words, unless NAB can prove that that the public officeholder acquired actual money or asset, in recompense for the misuse of his/her authority, no offence will have been committed under section 9(a)(vi) of the NAB Ordinance. Political favors and nepotism, in the distribution of public sector jobs, is no longer a grave enough offence.
In fact, even if there is financial benefit or exchange, but such benefit has not happened directly in the 'assets' of the public office holder, there is no possibility of section 9(a)(vi) offence. In other words, if a political leader illegally hands out public sector jobs/benefits to individuals (in order to 'buy' their votes), or receives payments in a relative or friend's bank account, such public office holder is not guilty of 'misuse of authority' under NAB Ordinance.
This amendment changed everything for the Raja
The learned NAB court, after discussing precedents of the honorable superior Courts, concluded that 'it is now well settled that an explanation added to the statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguity which may have crept in the statutory provision', and would thus apply retrospectively.
Therefore, the learned Court declared 'that misuse of authority by a person holding public office or a person discharging official duties, shall not constitute an offence, unless there is corroborative evidence of accumulation of any monetary benefit or asset.' Applying this principle to Raja
All we can do, in the circumstances, is shake our head and thank the PTI government for finally breaking this myth of political accountability. In the coming weeks and months, individuals like
This episode should make PTI supporters question their political choices: maybe
© Pakistan Press International, source