THE list of beneficiaries under the National Reconciliation Ordinance released by the government on Saturday has brought the issue of corruption and the rule of law squarely back in the limelight. There is some confusion about the actual number of politicians who received relief under the NRO; initial reports put the figure at 34, but it has since emerged that only 282 of the 8,000 beneficiaries were actually named in Saturday’s list. However, whatever the final tally of politicians in the NRO list, this much is already obvious: a large number of the beneficiaries, if not an outright majority, are bureaucrats and other government officials. And zooming out from just the NRO, another truth is apparent: those enriching themselves at the state’s and the people’s expense are not always elected representatives and civil servants; indeed, the shadow of suspicion falls across the full spectrum of those employed by the state and includes those in the armed services and the judiciary.

This is not to say that the outcry against the NRO is a red herring; the NRO was a bad idea — morally, legally and constitutionally — in the first place and the government made it worse with the amendments it introduced to the bill in the National Assembly before it was forced to withdraw the ‘NRO Plus’ recently. It is now up to the superior judiciary to decide the fate of all the cases ‘withdrawn’ or ‘terminated’ under the NRO and we await its ultimate decision on the matter. But there are at least two things that need serious attention when it comes to the issue of corruption by officials of the state, and both those issues go beyond the NRO. First, the issue of delays in the conclusion of investigations and trials in corruption matters. The NRO was promulgated in October 2007, but its effect reached back to January 1986. By any stretch of the imagination, a judicial system which cannot reach a conclusion in a case that may date back to almost a quarter of a century is unsatisfactory. It is in the public interest that those guilty of corruption must be convicted and punished as soon as possible; equally, those who have in fact been falsely implicated — always a possibility in a political culture that can be vindictive and malicious — must be exonerated as soon as possible.

Secondly, the anti-corruption checks at an institutional level — and across institutions — need to be urgently strengthened. Focusing on ‘tainted’ individuals alone misses the point: while past wrongdoers deserve to be punished, what is really needed is a system that deters corruption now and in the future.