Established through a Presidential Ordinance on 16 November 1999 (ADB and OEDC 18 Dec. 2003) by General Pervez Musharraf one month after taking office (Institutional Investor 1 Sept. 2003), the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was set up to investigate and prosecute officials involved in corruption (ibid.; ADB and OEDC 18 Dec. 2003). Headquartered in Islamabad, with regional offices in Rawalpindi, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta (NAB, 14), the NAB is the only federal anti-corruption agency in Pakistan (ibid., 1). Its mission is to "[e]liminate corruption through a comprehensive approach encompassing prevention, awareness, monitoring and combating" (NAB 2003, v). The institution's vision statement indicates that "[t]he National Accountability Bureau is to be a credible, effective, efficient and dynamic anti-corruption organization creating an enabling environment for a corruption free society" (ibid., vi). Although "functionally an independent body, it draws its financial resources from the Federal Budget" (ibid., 15) and is supported in its investigations by the Paramilitary Rangers, military personnel and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) (Dawn 30 Nov. 1999). In 2003, the Economic Crimes and Anti-Corruption departments of the FIA were transferred to the NAB (Dawn 1 Aug. 2003; NAB 2003, 1). (Please see the attached section from NAB's Annual Report 2002 regarding the transfer of FIA's functions)

The current Chairman of the NAB is Lieutenant General Hafiz Munir, who, though not directed by the President, does ask for Musharraf's advice on NAB operations (PakTribune 6 Dec. 2003).

As of 1 September 2003, the NAB had convicted 270 individuals on corruption-related charges and had 231 cases pending (Institutional Investor 1 Sept. 2003). For detailed information on how the NAB functions, please refer to the excerpted attachment from NAB's annual report for 2002.

According to its Annual Report 2002, the NAB has been recognized at the national and international level for its work in fighting corruption (NAB 2003, 1). A recent example of such acknowledgement includes a September 2003 meeting between NAB officials and a Norwegian delegation that was interested in working with NAB through a "proposed institutional arrangement between the government of Norway and Pakistan" because of NAB's corruption fighting approach (PakTribune 15 Sept. 2003). Also in September 2003, an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission visited NAB offices and gave its assurance that it would co-operate fully with NAB "in fighting corruption at every level in Pakistan" and expressed its appreciation of NAB's efforts in fighting corruption (ibid. 5 Sept. 2003).

Since its enactment in 1999, the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance conferred upon the NAB what some news reports described as "awesome" (The Economist 14 Oct. 2000) and "sweeping powers of investigation and arrest" (AP 30 Nov. 1999). According to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) news release, the Ordinance "denies detainees due process of law and invites politically-motivated prosecutions" (10 Oct. 2000). More specifically, an October 2000 report by HRW indicated that, since its establishment, the NAB's chairman has been an active military officer, and that the ordinance has created "extra-constitutional tribunals" and has "strip[ed] convicted persons of their political rights." The report also indicates that

People arrested under the accountability ordinance may be detained for up to ninety days without charge, a period that far exceeds the fifteen days permitted under Pakistan's Criminal Procedure Code. ... [T]he ordinance prohibits courts from granting bail and gives the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees-a provision that clearly contravenes the principle of separation of powers. The ordinance also establishes special accountability courts, provides that trials should be conducted within thirty days of charges being filed, and automatically bars those convicted under the ordinance from holding public office for twenty-one years. Under a February 2000 amendment, the ordinance shifts the burden of proof at trial to the defendant, who must demonstrate that he or she acted "in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used...." By policy, serving judges and senior officials of the armed forces are outside NAB's provenance (HRW Oct. 2000).

Corroborating information on NAB's powers was provided by the media (EIU ViewsWire 28 Mar. 2000), a human rights NGO (SAHRDC 5 Apr. 2000) and a government source (Country Reports 2002 31 Mar. 2003, Sec. 1e). One news article noted that court permission was not required for the 90-day detention period and that that period could be extended "almost indefinitely" (EIU ViewsWire 28 Mar. 2000). HRW reported that "[d]etainees need not be produced in court within 24 hours as otherwise required by Pakistan's Criminal Procedure Code" (25 Mar. 2000). According to the New Delhi-based South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), which has Special Consultative status with the Economic Council of the United Nations (SAHRDC n.d.), "the bureau [NAB] has not given some accused persons opportunities to consult with their lawyers, their family members and associates" (5 Apr. 2000). For detailed information on the powers of the NAB, please see the attached text of the Ordinance, which contains amendments up to 2000.

Ruling on various objections to the ordinance brought forth by political parties, in April 2001 the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered various amendments to be made to the Ordinance, including that the period of detention without charge be reduced from 90 to 15 days (BBC 25 Apr. 2001; Dawn 25 Apr. 2001; ibid. 16 Dec. 2002; Country Reports 2002 31 Mar. 2003, Sec. 1d), and that those convicted of corruption charges should be disqualified from holding public office for a maximum period of ten years, and not 21 years as originally provided (ibid.; Dawn 25 Apr. 2001). Information on the other changes issued by the Supreme Court ruling is available in the attached Dawn article dated 25 April 2001.

In August 2001, the Ordinance was amended again to "[make] it mandatory for the banks and financial institutions to provide [the NAB with] any information relating to any person which may be used as evidence in legal proceedings" (Business Recorder 15 Aug. 2001). In March 2003, the NAB decided to compile and monitor information on the assets of politicians, bureaucrats and government employees that fall under the ordinance (PakTribune 26 Mar. 2003). According to NAB spokesman, Brigadier Tayyab, "the monitoring of assets of the military officers serving in NAB on deputation also fall[s] under the NAB ordinance; [therefore,] [a]ction will be taken in this respect" (ibid.).

Reports of corruption by the NAB and its officials could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate. However, reports alleging that the NAB has been "biased" in its investigations (Dawn 27 Apr. 2002), employing a "selective nature of accountability" and "explicitly target[ing] politicians and bureaucrats but leav[ing] out military officers" (ibid. 24 July 2003) are prevalent.

In March 2000, the Washington Director of HRW's Asia Division stated that "'[t]he military government has used the National Accountability Ordinance to detain scores of political figures, who often have no idea of the charges being brought against them'" (HRW 25 Mar. 2000). In October 2002, The Washington Post reported that some diplomats and analysts believe that the Pakistan government uses the NAB "to intimidate and in some cases sideline potentially troublesome political opponents" (6 Oct 2002). The issue of bias in NAB operations has also been addressed by what the US government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) describes as the "widely respected" daily, Urdu language newspaper, Nawa-i-Waqt:

The NAB has been frequently blamed for bias attitude. It has been accused as an institution, which only gets hold of those who either oppose the government or refrain from cooperating with it. It has also been blamed for safeguarding political instead of national interests. It has been said that the institution has been used as a political tool, which also includes the element of mutual understanding of interests and bargaining by which anyone could get away with billions of rupees of corruption by giving a few millions (22 Sept. 2002).

In its October 2002 report on Pakistan's transition to democracy, the International Crisis Group (ICG) described the Musharraf government's accountability process as being "marred" by the NAB's selective "target[ing of] the government's civilian opposition." As the ICG explained, at the time of its report, the accountability courts were "being used to debar politicians from participating in the October [2002] polls," and the threat of investigation by the NAB was being used "to pressure politicians to join pro-government parties and electoral alliances" (3 Oct. 2002).

Most recently, in a Pakistan Press International (PPI) news report, the secretary general of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarian (PPPP), Raja Pervez Ashraf, accused the government of "character assassination and political harassment" for its use of the NAB as "an agent of political victimization" (10 Oct. 2003).

In 2000, NAB's prosecutor general, Farouk Adam Khan, insisted that the NAB has "'made it a basic policy that none of [its] prosecutions are going to be politically motivated'" (AFP 13 Mar. 2000). Four months later, while saying that "'there are extensive investigations being conducted against all past ministers, MNAs [members of the National Assembly], MPAs [members of Parliament] of the last two assemblies'," he added that "'it would not be correct'" to leave out anyone for "'extraneous reason[s]'" (Dawn 10 July 2000). He also indicated that investigations were being carried out against all senior bureaucrats and retired personnel of the armed forces (ibid.). (Please see the attached Nation article dated 10 October 2000 for information on NAB investigations of politicians within the first year of its existence).

Describing NAB's operations in 2002, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2002 indicated that "[d]espite governmental claims that NAB cases would be pursued independent of an individual's political affiliation, NAB had selectively targeted certain persons in the anti-corruption campaign" (31 Mar. 2003, Sec. 1d).

In its annual report for 2001, the Bureau defended itself against allegations that it carries out "selective accountability" against politicians:

"[t]he NAB has not targeted any specific group and the net figure of bureaucrats is higher because of the suspected culpability of a larger number of civil servants as compared to political office-holders and errant businessmen" (Dawn 21 June 2002).

The report also indicated that

[a]mong those disqualified from holding the public office are six former chief ministers, one former senator, 20 former members of the provincial assemblies, seven former members of the National Assembly and two former prime ministers (ibid.).

The report also indicated that NAB's investigations have to the disqualification from office of six former chief ministers, one former senator, twenty former members of provincial assemblies, seven former members of the National Assembly and two former prime ministers (ibid.). A year later, the NAB continued to maintain that the political sector was the most corrupt element in Pakistan society (ibid. 25 Aug. 2003). The police, said the NAB, is "'one of the leading corrupt elements, ... followed by the judiciary, revenue ... and the last but not the least corrupt institution ... is [the] Power related sector'" (ibid.). Of the 539 cases finalized by the NAB (as of April 2003), 87 were registered against politicians, 219 against bureaucrats, 39 against traders and industrialists, 8 against military officers and 42 were categorized as miscellaneous (PakTribune 22 Apr. 2003).

In a July 2002 editorial in the independent, English-language daily The Nation, the author explained that the problems experienced by the NAB and previous anti-corruption agencies in Pakistan are "perhaps more of perception than of reality" (21 July 2002). Since these agencies have been headed by persons appointed by the Prime Minister or chief executive, the editorial writer said that they are "seen as politically motivated and selective in their work, which reduced the credibility of their efforts, allowing culprits to pose as victims" (The Nation 21 July 2002). As recently as December 2003, NAB Chairman Hafiz Munir, responding to allegations that Musharraf interferes in the affairs of the NAB, called the allegations "false propaganda" launched and maintained by those whom the Bureau has set its sights on "for their corrupt practices" (PakTribune 6 Dec. 2003). Munir added that the NAB "could not take any action against anyone unless ... proof is provided" (ibid.).

Several sources have also criticized the NAB for not pursuing investigations of the serving army, the judiciary (The Economist 14 Oct. 2000; SAHRDC 5 Apr. 2000; AFP 21 June 2000) or the media (ibid.). In its Annual Report 2002, the NAB stated that members of the armed forces are excluded from national accountability because they are "governed by a different set of statutes, which provide for an in-built accountability mechanism" (2003, 10). However,

... members of Armed Forces of Pakistan holding, or those who held a post or office in any public corporation, bank, financial institution, or other organization established, controlled or administered by or under the Federal Government or a Provincial Government and the civilian employee of Armed Forces, are subject to National Accountability Ordinance.

Exclusion of judiciary has come about as a result of the Supreme Court Judgment ... (Asfandyar Wali Khan and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others), wherein it was held that the accountability of the judiciary cannot be given to the executive since it would breach the principle of independence of judiciary, a practice not unique to Pakistan. Here again only the sitting members of the higher judiciary are exempt from NAO (NAB 2003, 10).

In 2000, on the issue of accountability of the armed forces and the judiciary, NAB prosecutor General Khan said:

"As for the serving army, who do you want to be investigated by NAB? The Bureau has serving army officers. Its Chairman is a serving Lieutenant General, the Deputy Chairman is a serving Major General, the Chief of Staff is a serving Brigadier. Do you want us, the NAB, an army organization in essence, to carry out investigation[s] of their serving army officers?" (Dawn 10 July 2000).

Khan also said that there was nothing in the NAB ordinance to prevent the NAB from looking into the judiciary (ibid.).

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Please find below the list of additional sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia Pacific. 18 December 2003. "Contacts and Links: Pakistan." (Anti-Corruption Ring Online) http://www1.oecd.org/daf/ASIAcom/contacts/Pakistan.htm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Agence France Presse (AFP). 21 June 2000. "Pakistani Opposition Demands Early Elections." (Dialog)

_____. 13 March 2000. "Pakistan Asks Interpol to Help with 40 Arrest Warrants." (NEXIS)

Associated Press (AP). 30 November 1999. Kathy Gannon. "Army Chief: 100 New Courts to Be Established to Try the Corrupt." (NEXIS)

BBC. 25 April 2001. "Pakistan Court Amends Corruption Law." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1294261.stm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Business Recorder. 15 August 2001. "Chambers Federation Opposes Amendment in Accountability Bureau Ordinance Over Bank Account Details." (Dialog)

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2002. 31 March 2003. United States Department of State. Washingon, D.C. http://www.state.gvo/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18314.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

Dawn [Karachi]. 1 August 2003. "FIA's Units Merger Notification Soon." http://www.dawn.com/2003/08/01/nat24.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 24 July 2003. Aqil Shah. "The Rot in NHA Is Symptomatic." http://www.dawn.com/2003/07/24/op.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 16 December 2002. Rafaqat Ali. "Military Gov Promulgated 297 Ordinances in Three Years." http://www.dawn.com/ [Accessed 16 Dec. 2002]

_____. 21 June 2002. Arshad Sharif. "Only 2pc Cases Being Investigated by NAB." http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/21/top13.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 27 April 2002. Irfan Husain. "The Blame Game." http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20020427.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 25 April 2001. Rafaqat Ali. "Supreme Court Orders Changes in National Accountability Bureau Ordinance-Verdict Announced." http://www.dawn.com/2001/04/25/top1.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 10 July 2000. "Inquiry Under Way Against All Lawmakers." http://www.dawn.com/ [Accessed 10 July 2000]

_____. 30 November 1999. Habib Khan Ghori. "ECL Update Today: New Law Shortly to Register Aliens." http://www.dawn.com/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2003]

The Economist [London]. 14 October 2000. U.S. ed. "Pakistan's Useless Dictator." (NEXIS)

EIU ViewsWire [New York]. 28 March 2000. "Pakistan Politics: Military Continues Crackdown on Corruption." (NEXIS)

Human Rights Watch (HRW), New York. 10 October 2000. "Pakistan Coup Anniversary: Human Rights Abuses Rampant." Press Release. (hrwatch@igc.org 10 Oct. 2000)

_____. October 2000. Vol. 12, No. 6(C). "Abuses in Accountability Cases." Reform or Repression? Post-Coup Abuses in Pakistan. http://hrw.org/reports/2000/pakistan/pakio09-05.htm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

_____. 25 March 2000. "Clinton Should Denounce Abusive Law in Pakistan." Press Release. http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/03/pak0324.htm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Institutional Investor [New York]. 1 September 2003. Vol. 28, No. 9. Assif Hamlin. "Now for the Hard Part: President Pervez Musharraf has Pakistan's Near-Bankrupt Economy Rolling Again. But Can He Reduce Poverty and Stifle Radicalism to Fashion His Dream of 'a Very Stable, Balanced, Progressive, Dynamic Islamic Country?" (Dialog)

International Crisis Group (ICG). 3 October 2002. Pakistan: Transition to Democracy? Asia Report, No. 40. http://www.ecoi.net/pub/nz194_00900pak.pdf [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

The Nation [Lahore]. 21 July 2002. "Pakistan: Daily Calls for More Transparent, Efficient System of Accountability." (FBIS-NES-2002-0721 22 July 2002/Dialog)

National Accountability Bureau (NAB). 2003. National Accountability Bureau Annual Report 2002. http://www1.oecd.org/daf/ASIAcom/pdf/pakistan_nab_annual_report2002.pdf [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Nawa-i-Waqt [Rawalpindi]. 22 September 2002. "Pakistan: Daily Views Government Decision to Increase Power of NAB." (FBIS-NES-2002-0922 23 Sept. 2003/Dialog)

Pakistan Press International (PPI). 10 October 2003. "Politics (PPPP Calls Government to Reverse Victimization Policy." (Dialog)

PakTribune [Islamabad]. 6 December 2003. "Hafeez Denies Musharraf's Interference in NAB Affairs." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=47329 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 15 September 2003. "Norwegian Delegation Visits NAB Hqrs." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=38254 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 5 September 2003. "IMF Mission Visits NAB Offices." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=37481 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 25 August 2003. "Police Most Corrupt Institution of Country: NAB." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=36328 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 22 April 2003. "NAB Playing Vital Role to Create Investment Friendly Atmosphere: Munir." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=22890 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

_____. 26 March 2003. "NAB to Compile, Monitor Assets Data of Politicians, Govt Employees, Bureaucrats." http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=20098 [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003]

South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), New Delhi. n.d. "About SAHRDC." http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/about.htm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

_____. 5 April 2000. "The Jack Boot in Pakistan: Violations of Civil and Political Rights Since the Army Take-Over." (HRF/18/00) http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF18.htm [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

The Washington Post. 6 October 2002. John Lancaster. "Pakistanis View Return to Polls with Cynicism; Musharraf's Embrace of Democracy Doubted." (NEXIS)

Attachments

Dawn [Karachi]. 25 April 2001. Rafaqat Ali. "Supreme Court Orders Changes in National Accountability Bureau Ordinance-Verdict Announced." http://www.dawn.com/2001/04/25/top1.htm [Accessed 19 Dec. 2003] (4 pages)

The Nation [Lahore]. 10 October 2000. Anwer Sindhu and Rana Qaisar"A Tough Accountability Year for Politicians." (NEXIS) (3 pages)

National Accountability Bureau (NAB). 2003. "How the NAB Functions." National Accountability Bureau Annual Report 2002. http://www1.oecd.org/daf/ASIAcom/pdf/pakistan_nab_annual_report2002.pdf [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003] pp.3-6

National Accountability Bureau (NAB). 2003. National Accountability Bureau Annual Report 2002. http://www1.oecd.org/daf/ASIAcom/pdf/pakistan_nab_annual_report2002.pdf [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Pakistan. 16 November 1999. National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. No. XVIII of 1999. http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1999/NABOrdinance.html [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003] (14 pages)

Additional Sources Consulted

IRB Databases

Internet sites, including:

The Daily Mail [Islamabad]

The Daily Times [Lahore]

European Country of Origin Information Network (ECOI)

Global Corruption Report 2003

National Accountability Bureau (non-operational)

Transparency International

Search engine:

Google
Electronic Attachment

National Accountability Bureau (NAB). 2003. National Accountability Bureau Annual Report 2002. http://www1.oecd.org/daf/ASIAcom/pdf/pakistan_nab_annual_report2002.pdf [Accessed 18 Dec. 2003]

Transfer of some FIA Functions

7.18 The decision to take over anti-corruption and economic crimes functions from FIA's mandate was based on management principles described by International Best Practices. According to the latter, there should be a single anti-corruption agency in a given jurisdiction and it must be autonomous and specialized. Since the work of FIA and NAB overlapped, there was a requirement to take out at least one of them. FIA is looking after areas other than corruption also and is an attached department of the Interior Division, which impedes its operational, administrative as well as financial autonomy. It cannot prosecute a person without permission from the controlling ministry. NAB, having been developed as a specialist and autonomous anticorruption agency, is eminently suited to be the apex anti-corruption agency of the Country.

7.19 Credibility is also a critical issue in combating corruption. FIA unfortunately has lost it over the years. To date the Agency has failed to successfully prosecute a single officer above BS-19.