A BENCH of Peshawar High Court recently granted bail to a prominent physicist, Dr Naeem Khalid, bringing to limelight the performance of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission. Dr Naeem, who is chairman of department of physics at Islamia College University, was arrested by the commission on Nov 3 on multiple charges of misuse of authority and corruption.

Following his arrest, it surfaced that Dr Naeem, who had done his PhD from Cambridge University, has been engaged before different forums including National Accountability Bureau and KP Governor Inspection Team during last many years as apparently a group of officials and teachers of the university has been instrumental in sending complaints to different bodies against him as well as his wife, Dr Shazia Yaseen, an associate professor in the same department.

Despite the fact that NAB, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, had cleared him of different allegations of same nature and a report by Governor Inspection Team had also recommended that the said group of teachers and officials may be admonished, the KPEC considered it appropriate to arrest the highly-qualified professor, who returned to Pakistan from UK to serve his people.

A bench comprising Justice Nisar Hussain and Justice Lal Jan Khattak on Dec 13 allowed bail to Dr Naeem with the condition to furnish two sureties of Rs5 million each. Because of loopholes in the case and findings of NAB and Governor Inspection Team (GIT), the prosecutor representing the commission could not defend the case.

Going through the documents of NAB and GIT it is evident that the case of Dr Naeem is that of victimisation. It also brings to light the loopholes in KPEC Act, 2014, under which the commission was set up. While the commission comprises of five Ehtesab commissioners including Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, most of the powers have been assigned to the director general.

The commission has the power to oversee the overall performance of directorate general of the commission, its officers and employees without interfering in day-to-day operational matters. It is provided that the commissioners shall not engage directly or indirectly with an accused or other party involved with a complaint or case under investigation or prosecution or otherwise being considered by the director general.

Experts believe that it would be appropriate to make arrest of a suspect binding with the approval of the five-member commission to avoid arbitrary arrest of any person on flimsy or generalised grounds.

In the grounds of arrest of Dr Naeem Khalid, prepared by the commission, it is alleged that he while posted as associate professor at Islamia College University (ICU) Peshawar had committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices. It is alleged that he had misappropriated and embezzled huge amount worth millions in procurement of different items with the active connivance of other co-accused.

It is alleged that he had also played role in illegal appointments in the university.

Ever since the appointment of Dr Naeem and his wife, Dr Shazia Yaseen, certain quarters continued campaign against them. Apart from defending themselves before the high court in different cases, they have also to clear themselves before NAB and GIT.

In the comments filed in reply to a writ petition filed by Dr Naeem for his release on bail, NAB director general stated about a complaint of Oct 5, 2011, that the said complaint was based upon embezzlement in procurement of different items such as books, atomic force microscopic machine, computers, split air conditioners, furniture, etc.

The NAB states that the complaint was verified and it was concluded that books were purchased as per standards notified by the ministry of education (department of libraries). Further, it added that split ACs, office furniture and computers, etc were purchased by fulfilling all the procurement rules. Similarly, atomic force microscopic machine was purchased through opening letter of credit (LC) and imported from Germany.

About another complaint of Dec 10, 2015, about embezzlement of funds and misuse of authority, NAb states that the complaint was verified and it was exposed that appointment of Dr Naeem and his wife to the post of professor and associate professor respectively were made with due course of selection board and later were approved by the Senate of ICU.

Furthermore, the allegations regarding bogus and fake account were found not genuine. The items in question were also found available and in working condition.

Interestingly, the said teachers continued their campaign and filed two complaints with GIT. The complainants in one of the complaints were mentioned as teaching community but without any signature, whereas the other complaint was filed by a teacher. In those complaints, several charges were levelled against the couple also questioning their appointment.

The GIT in its findings mentioned: “It was reliably learnt that a complaint mafia is in action against Prof Dr Naeem Khalid and his wife sending complaints to various forums like Governor’s Inspection Team, provincial inspection team, National Accountability Bureau, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ehtesab Commission, Anti-Corruption Establishment and even dragging them to courts again and again.”

The GIT had also mentioned several names as members of the said mafia and observed that most of the precious time of Dr Khalid and his wife were wasted in attending those offices and at the end nothing was proved against them.

About the complainant, the MIT mentioned that he was having a personal grudge against Dr Naeem as he was blacklisted in a plagiarism case by Higher Education Commission and he presumed that Dr Naeem did it in his capacity as HEC’s adviser.

“The complaints being frivolous and devoid of substance may be filed. It only reflects the professional jealousy and venom, which is not only harmful for the individual but for the university as a whole,” the GIT observed. It recommended that the complainant and other members of the said mafia may be admonished for not only wasting the precious time of higher authorities, but courts and other institutions as well.

Before the high court, the commission’s prosecutor claimed that the allegations in which they had been investigation were different from those, which were before NAB and GIT.

The bench in its order observed that purchase items of huge amount may not be a job of single person, who according to respondents including KPEC was member technical, only to give opinion related to functions and utility of equipment, while names of rest of the members and chairman of the procurement committee had not been disclosed.

An expert on the subject believes that the KPEC Act needs to be amended so as to further strengthen the provision related to frivolous complaint for maligning a person. He says that presently maximum sentence provided under section 37 (4) of the Act is one year imprisonment with fine. The sentence should be enhanced and persons involved in frivolous complaints should be prosecuted, he adds.

Published in Dawn December 26th, 2016