LAHORE, Oct 8: The NAB claimed in the Lahore High Court on Wednesday that it could not look into the waivers given to the defaulters from time to time, as it was the exclusive prerogative of the State Bank of Pakistan and the finance ministry to deal with such matters.

NAB Deputy Prosecutor-General (appeals) Waqar Hassan Mir stated this in court while responding to a petition filed by M D Tahir, who claimed that Rs100 billion loans given to politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists and other influential people from 1974 to 1991 had been written off in violation of rules.

Besides, multi-billion rupees loans sanctioned since 1992 had been waived off recently for some unknown reasons, he said, accusing the NAB of being a silent spectator to the grant of these concessions to big defaulters.

Many of these defaulters had allegedly been got returned to the legislature recently, but the SBP and the NAB had not taken any action against them. The NAB, according to the petitioner, had been pursuing a pick-and-choose policy against the defaulters, as most of them had gone unpunished despite tall claims being made by the bureau about recovering huge loans.

The petitioner also alleged that such treatment on part of the NAB was completely unconstitutional, saying it should adopt a uniform policy against all the defaulters, irrespective of their social and economic status. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had put both the NAB and the SBP under notice on this petition.

Denying the allegations, the DPG claimed that waiving off the loans was the exclusive prerogative of the SBP, the finance ministry and all the banks concerned under Section 40-A and 25-AA of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962.

“It is a central bank’s policy to allow the right-off and the restructuring of the stuck up loans within the Prudential Regulations. The SBP carries out inspection of the right-off cases as part of its normal inspection process and submits report under the 1962 ordinance,” the DPG submitted while separating the NAB’s area of operation from that of the SBP.

Mr Mir further clarified that the NAB could not take up cases beyond the cut-off date of Jan 1, 1985, as mentioned in the NAB Ordinance 1999. According to the current provisions, no case of wilful default could be interrogated by the NAB unless it was referred to it by the SBP governor after completion of certain formalities.

The charges of being “selective” in dealing with the wilful default cases were vehemently refuted on the grounds that the NAB, in collaboration with the central and other banks, had made recoveries to the extent of Rs98.83 billion between Nov 1999 and June 30, 2003. Initially, some 26 high-profile default cases involving politicians, businessmen and ex-servicemen were referred to the accountability courts for regular trial. Of those, as many as 18 cases resulted in conviction while in two cases acquittal was allowed, he said.

The NAB, he said, was operating well within its limits in a transparent manner as regard the default matters. He added that the petitioner could lodge a complaint about wilful default with both the NAB and the SBP.

He assured that an appropriate action, within the NAB’s jurisdiction, would be taken on such a complaint.