IN a bid to fight corruption, leading multilateral development banks (MDBs) have concluded an agreement to cross-debar individuals and companies involved in wilful mismanagement and malpractice in MDB-funded development projects.

The agreement provides for tough conditions, reprimand or debarment, and was signed on April 9 by the African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank Group and the World Bank Group.

Such a debarment renders the entities found involved in wrongdoings ineligible, either for a specific period of time or permanently, to take part in MDB-financed activity in future.

Viewed against the backdrop of the international commitment to fight fraud and corruption, as epitomised by the new MDB accord, similar efforts in Pakistan appear to lack seriousness and sincerity. Corruption has changed the values of our society and, like a disease, has infected the social, political and economic aspects of our lives. State institutions have become weak and the civil bureaucracy, infested with inefficiency and corruption, is unable to deliver public service as was highlighted by the International Crisis Group report 2010.

Despite the existence of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), the two white-collar crime investigation agencies at the federal level, and anti-corruption establishments (ACEs) at the provincial level, an accountability system is virtually non-existent in the country. As a result, corruption continues to surge.

The FIA and ACEs have displayed low prosecution rates and the inability of these agencies to control corruption led to the creation of the Ehtesab Bureau and NAB. The latter, with the highest prosecution and conviction rates and recoveries — through voluntary return and plea bargains — to its credit, is currently facing immense difficulties in carrying out counter-corruption operations. It has become a virtually dysfunctional organisation since the prime minister announced in March 2008 that it would be disbanded.

Subsequently, its powers were clipped and its budget was substantially curtailed, thus forcing it to whittle down the workforce and sack hundreds of experienced investigators, prosecutors, customs and audit experts. It also had to minimise its activities by transferring cases to other departments, the FIA and the ACEs.

Currently, NAB Sindh has only three prosecutors and one deputy prosecutor general for the high court and five accountability courts in the province. These ill-paid prosecutors are assigned to plead high-profile corruption cases that are defended by highly paid and experienced defence counsels.

Other regional branches of NAB are facing a similar situation. Owing to the lack of seasoned prosecutors, there has been a precipitous decline in conviction rates. The latest statistics show that out of a total of 217 acquittals and the withdrawal of 128 cases in NAB's history, 56 acquittals and 36 withdrawals took place just in 2009. Due to reasons unknown, NAB not only withheld its annual report for 2008 but also kept dormant the cases of politicians and those of the National Reconciliation Ordinance beneficiaries that were reopened after the controversial order was declared null and void.

With no alternative accountability mechanism, corrupt elements are looting and plundering at liberty. The government demonstrated naiveté in declaring that NAB would be wound up. Instead of dumping it altogether, the government ought to have amended the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 to rid it of repressive clauses and made structural changes in NAB. The move has, instead, resulted in a setback to the process of accountability and given rise to corruption — Transparency International ranked Pakistan at 139 among 180 countries in its Corruption Perception Index 2009.

The deliberations on new accountability laws, which are being delayed for more than a year, are still inconclusive. The bill is trapped in a deadlock between the PPP and the PML-N as the leader of the opposition has stated that the proposed bill would be strongly resisted when presented in parliament in its existing form.

While the proposed new law, called the National Accountability Commission Act, does not cover wilful bank default and cases of cheating the public at large, the opposition's reservations that certain clauses render the entire bill meaningless seem to be based on cogent reasons. The term 'good faith' in the bill's indemnity clause may serve as a bulwark for accused persons and makes it extremely difficult to establish corruption charges against corrupt officials.

Even if a reference is abortively filed in a court of law, the case cannot be successfully prosecuted because the phrase 'good faith' leads to doubts and as per the principles of fair trial, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.

Furthermore, the bill negates the essence of genuine accountability since it does not have provisions to request foreign states to freeze the assets of persons facing investigation on corruption charges in Pakistan. This encourages those corrupt officials that are engaged in money-laundering.

The agency proposed for the enforcement of the new law, if put into effect, will be the National Accountability Commission which will replace NAB, with the assets and employees of the latter being transferred to the former.

This proposition fuels concerns about the extent of its implementation, given the fact that the already existing NAB is incapacitated and demoralised. Additionally, there are rudimentary flaws in the proposed law. While the timeframe to complete the new legislation is unascertainable and its successful implementation, once it comes into force, remains to be seen, the accountability system has yet to gain strength.

The writer is former investigation officer of NAB, Sindh.

asmper@hotmail.com