ISLAMABAD: Apart from declaring forced conversions as un-Islamic and unconstitutional, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) announced on Thursday that several sections of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 were against the norms of Shariah and even described them as below human dignity.

While there was no reaction from NAB to the CII observation, an unexpected defence of the current accountability law came from Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry.

In a tweet, the minister not only criticised the CII observation over the conduct of NAB, but also questioned the legality of the council.

“Sections 14-D, 15-A and 26 of the accountability law were un-Islamic,” declared CII chairman Dr Qibla Ayaz at a press conference after a two-day meeting of the council. He said the option of plea bargain and turning of suspects into approvers were also against Shariah.

Minister criticises observation, questions legality of the council

“National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019, will make the accountability law further discriminatory,” Dr Ayaz said, adding: “NAB law is not compatible with Islamic laws on crime and punishment; the council will also review amendments to the [NAB] law.”

The council members even termed certain NAB practices inhuman, including handcuffing of suspects irrespective of their status in society, and eventually many of them are allowed to go free as the accountability watchdog fails to prove charges against them in a court of law.

“We discussed the dignity of individuals and it was observed that handcuffing suspects and airing footage of the arrested person on media are un-Islamic,” Dr Ayaz said.

The council observed that it was not a responsibility of the suspects to prove their innocence, but the authority had to prove the charges framed against them, adding that keeping a suspect in custody for a longer period without getting any result or filing a case was also against Islamic principles.

Section 14 of the NAB law pertains to presumption against accused accepting illegal gratification, Section 15 relates to disqualification to contest elections (or to hold public office) and Section 26 pertains to tender of pardon.

The CII meeting also discussed recommendations regarding prevention of sexual violence against children and suggested that a special court be set up to look into such incidents.

Meanwhile, Fawad Chaudhry in a tweet expressed “serious concerns” about the CII’s performance. “Till today the religious segments of the country have not received any guidance from the ideological council (CII),” he said, adding that he could not understand the logic behind spending millions of rupees on such an institution.

Mr Chaudhry has a history of confrontation with the CII and other state institutions, including Ruet-i-Hilal Committee, on religious matters, as he had earlier announced that there was no need for a moon-sighting committee in the modern era.

The minister triggered a brief media war, with CII chairman Dr Ayaz as well as former JUI-F senator Hafiz Hamdullah responding to his remarks.

Dr Ayaz said the minister’s tweet was beyond his comprehension as the government, the Supreme Court and a high court had all expressed dissatisfaction over the NAB law. “We have only reviewed the NAB law from the perspective of Shariah,” he explained.

One CII member told Dawn that the role of council was beyond politics and party lines as technical discussions were held there to determine the Shariah compliance of Pakistani laws.

In his statement, Hafiz Hamdullah called Fawad Chaudhry an ignorant person and said that defaming the CII was not a sensible act. “The irony is that on the one hand this government claims to be the flag-bearer for establishment of ‘state of Madina’ in Pakistan and, on the other, cabinet members criticise the CII, the same institution that has been tasked with devising principals to establish a welfare state in Pakistan on the pattern of ‘state of Madina’,” he said.

The JUI-F leader advised Mr Chaudhry to concentrate on the performance of his ministry. “It is not advisable to interfere in every matter.”

Published in Dawn, January 10th, 2020