ISLAMABAD: An accountability law proposed by the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on law and justice leaves several loopholes for any accused or public office-holder to escape prosecution.

Legal experts have pointed out three major flaws in the ‘holders of public office (accountability) bill: deletion of wilful default as an offence; that no public office-holder can be charged for any offence under the law more than three years after leaving the post; and so will be any person exercising any power or performing any function under this act for anything which has been done in good faith or intended to be done under the act.

If the bill is implemented and the National Reconciliation Ordinance lapses, the accused in all white collar crime cases that were washed out by former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf will have no fear of prosecution because the NRO had provided immunity for the 1986-1999 period. The proposal of immunity to public office-holders three years after leaving office was opposed by the opposition when previous drafts were presented before the committee.

However, the proposal has been retained in the fresh draft that is likely to be presented before parliament to replace the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999. Under the proposed law, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) will be replaced by an accountability commission.

According to a press release issued by the National Assembly secretariat, ‘the committee agreed that the provision relating to wilful default may be deleted from the act, provided that equivalent provisions are made in the relevant law. Moreover, the bill on ‘holders of public offices (accountability) act-2009’ will not be placed before the house till such time that the inclusion of the relevant provisions of wilful default acts is finalised by the committee.’

Legal experts believe that deletion of wilful default from offences covered by the law would not benefit the common man. Instead, it would benefit only the big fish who obtain heavy loans from banks with the intention of defaulting.

A provision in the draft says: ‘A holder of public office is said to commit an offence of wilful default under this act if he does not pay, or continues not to pay or return or repay an amount exceeding Rs10 million due from him to any bank, financial institution, cooperative society, government department, statutory body, or any authority established or controlled by the government on the date that it became due as per agreement containing the obligations to pay, return or repay or according to the laws, rules, regulations, instructions, issued or notified by the State Bank of Pakistan, or the bank, financial institutions, cooperative society, government department, statutory body or any authority established or controlled by the government, as the case may be, and a 30-day notice has been given to such person or holder of public office: Provided that minimum limit of amount as aforesaid shall not apply to pending cases or cases under inquiry or investigation before the commencement of this act: Provided further that in the case of default concerning a bank or a financial institution, a seven-day notice has also been given to such a person or holder of public office by the governor of the State Bank of Pakistan: Provided further that the aforesaid 30-day or seven-day notice shall not apply to cases pending trial at the time of the commencement of the act.’

Another provision says: ‘No case against a holder of public office shall be registered after three years of his ceasing to hold office for an offence under this act which he is alleged to have committed during his tenure.’

Another controversial provision says: ‘No suit, prosecution or any other proceedings shall lie against the federal government, provincial government, chairman of the accountability commission, or any other member of the accountability commission or any person exercising any power or performing any function under this act or the rules made thereunder for any act or thing which has been done in good faith or intended to be done under this act or the rules thereof.’