PESHAWAR: The provision of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 related to the release of corruption suspects by the National Accountability Bureau through voluntary return and plea bargain was challenged in the Peshawar High Court on Monday.

Malakand resident Basit Afzal filed a petition with the court seeking orders to declare unconstitutional and un-Islamic the release of persons under the NAB law’s provision on voluntary return or plea bargain.

He requested the court to declare Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 dealing with plea bargain and voluntary return ‘unconstitutional and against injunctions of Islam’.

The petition filed through lawyer Malik Mohammad Ajmal stated that the provisions of plea bargain and voluntary return were also in conflict with the United Nations Convention against corruption, especially its sections 2, 25, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33-C and 34-A.

Under Section 25 of the NAO 1999, where a holder of public office or any other person, prior to the authorisation of investigation against him, voluntarily comes forward and offers to return the assets made by him in the course, or as the consequence, of any offence under this Ordinance, the NAB chairman may accept such offer and after determination of the amount due from such person and its deposit with the NAB discharge such person from all his liability in respect of the matter or transaction in issue.

After the authorisation of investigation or end of inquiry stage a corruption suspect can’t be exonerated by the chairman on basis of voluntary return and that he can only apply for plea bargain for which the approval of the relevant court is necessary. In both cases of voluntary return and plea bargain, a suspect is set free on returning back his or her ill gotten money and has not to face trial.

The petitioner, who is a law graduate, stated that under Article 2 of the Constitution Islam should be the state religion of Pakistan meaning thereby that Pakistan was an Islamic state wherein people had limited sovereign powers and delegate only that authority, which was within the limits of Quran and Sunnah and therefore, the impugned provisions of the NAO were in negation of it.

The petitioner stated that under Article 4 of the Constitution to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being in Pakistan. However, he added that contrary to that provision, unbridled powers had been assigned to the NAB chairman to release persons suspected of massive theft.

The petitioner contended that NAO Section 25 was also in conflict with sections 9 and 10 of the ordinance explaining the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and punishment for it. The petitioner claimed that there were many instances in which assets valuing million of rupees were acquired by people through corrupt practices but by virtue of the impugned section, a nominal amount was agreed upon and the remaining was declared white money in an act, which promoted corruption.

The respondents in the petition are federation of Pakistan through the ministry of interior; federal secretary law and human rights; NAB through its chairman, and the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its law secretary and home secretary.

Published in Dawn, October 6th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play