THE ruckus has been ongoing for some time. Allegations. Counter allegations. The accused accuse the accusers. More threats of protest. Demands for the prime minister to go home. Political commentators foresee the fall of the government. Doomsday pundits hear marching boots.

The country has been through the same drill before. Every time it is in the name of the people of Pakistan, but it has never delivered substantially to protect public interest against corruption, which undermines good governance and taints the public’s perception of democracy itself.

Notwithstanding some successes, anti-corruption departments, investigation agencies and accountability bureaus have largely failed to tackle corruption in the face of increasingly sophisticated ways being employed by the smart and educated of society — politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and military officers — to deprive the poor and downtrodden of essential investments in development. With extremely weak laws and even weaker enforcement, living beyond justifiable means has, therefore, become a norm amid a complex nexus of corruption which operates around most public institutions — un-abetted and with impunity.

Despite being the most pertinent, urgent issue for political and public discourse, not one government has passed effective legislation to deter corruption and allied crimes — such as misuse of authority, gratifications of various sorts, offshore investments, laundering of illegally gotten money, financial favours to political cronies, policy and tax regime tempering, questionable public procurements, controversial privatisation of state entities, etc — only exposing a lack of political will to address it.

Not one government has passed effective legislation to deter corruption and allied crimes.

The Panama leaks offer yet another opportunity for the country’s political class to stiffen the watered-down legislative framework which fails to address corruption committed in evermore innovative ways. It is not sufficient for opposition parties to simply use the leaks to strike at the soft belly of the prime minister. They must present a charter of demands, outlining legislative amendments to accountability laws, in order to create strong, independent institutions.

This charter may include concrete, specific legislative recommendations to insulate the National Accountability Bureau, Federal Investigation Agency, and provincial anti-corruption departments from the influence of the executive. Appointing heads of these institutions should be subject to transparent public hearings, and their terms of service should be protected by law. These agencies must be given mutually exclusive, but complementing, powers of investigation, prosecution and deterrence — which should be not be subject to directions from the government and political institutions. However, effective accountability mechanisms on these agencies’ powers may only cater to their efficacy, as otherwise they themselves may become a source of coercive extortions.

Moreover, anti-corruption agencies must be empowered to net the corrupt using innovative means, such as sting operations and traps; prosecution of persons living beyond justifiable means; surveillance of accounts of shady officials and politicians, their dependents and friends, etc. Legal amendments should focus on empowering agencies to take proactive measures rather than waiting for complaints — corruption is collusive in nature, as are most white-collar crimes. Such measures can be taken on the basis of source information drawn from income and wealth tax returns; internal and external audit reports of public and private institutions; movement of money to and from the country; traceable expenses by individuals such as foreign travels; purchase and registration of vehicles and property etc. Access to information required for investigation by these agencies cannot be subject to the government’s permission.

Also meriting attention is Section 42-A of the Representation of People Act 1976, which requires elected members of parliament and provincial assemblies to declare their assets and liabilities to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) by Sept 13 of every year. Pending the submission, their assembly membership remains suspended. Introduced by the Musharraf-led government before the 2002 elections, although it became a hollow ritual with no real consequences, it can be made potent through a series of amendments.

Under this statutory requirement, members declare their, their spouse’s, and their dependents’ assets and liabilities on a simple form which requires the actual cost and fair present value of their moveable and immoveable assets. However, the format provided is too simple, to the extent that it cannot capture the intricacies of the matter. Members use one form, instead of separate forms, to declare their and their dependents’ assets. A separate form needs to be filled for each person, along with a net asset reconciliation statement. All new assets acquired during the year must reconcile with the income and its source. The same should be applicable to all dependents.

The definition of a ‘dependent’, however, is not provided in the law, allowing members to acquire assets in the name of their children, who they no longer consider as dependents. One such example is of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif himself, who only declared assets that he and his wife held while his sons accumulated wealth as alleged by the Panama leaks. The law, therefore, provides space for the concealment of assets retained by the family. This is just one example, but significant enough to warrant an amendment to bind members to declare assets and liabilities of their entire family, irrespective of whether or not they are dependent. This will enhance the scope of public accountability to some extent.

Section 42-A, ironically, does not require members and their dependents to declare their annual income as well as the taxes paid. The law must be amended to bind members and their dependents to submit to ECP a return of total income statement of final taxation under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, along with the wealth reconciliation statement. Currently, they are required to divulge their income and taxes paid only at the time of the nomination for election. In addition, ECP must be given blanket powers to investigate, scrutinise and verify these statements in order to deter the falsification or concealment of assets.

Now is the time for political parties, civil society and intelligentsia to raise demands for improvements in legal and administrative frameworks. Only ruthless accountability and exemplary punishments for the corrupt will create the kind of fear that is required to deter and tackle corruption. This opportunity should not be lost to politicking for power.

The writer works for the Free and Fair Election Network.

Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2016