ahlam1399
01-11-2020, 06:49 AM
ISLAMABAD: The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has woken up 20 years after the introduction of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law to declare its certain harsh provisions un-Islamic when the statute has severely bitten several people over the past two decades.
Particularly high-profile politicians have been worst hit as they have to land in jail and face lifelong disqualification to hold public office because of the draconian provisions, now described as un-Islamic by the CII.
Handcuffing of the accused by NAB, which has been despised by the CII, has also often been denounced by many circles. Same is the case with prolonged detention in the NAB custody prior to the lodging of cases.
When contacted by The News, CII Chairman Dr Qibla Ayaz said that the CII chief and members are appointed for three years, and it is for the previous organisational structure to state as to why they did not review the NAB law from the Islamic point of view since it was promulgated in 1999.
He said when some months back, handcuffing of educationists, including Mujahid Kamran and Akram Chaudhry by NAB surfaced, the issue was raised in a CII meeting that was in progress at the time. It was then concluded that an accused could only be hand-cuffed if there are chances that he would commit violence or abscond. Without these reasons, such an action is un-Islamic, he said.
The CII chief said that it was decided in that meeting that the NAB law should be reviewed in totality and a committee headed by former chief justice of the Peshawar High Court Raza Khan was constituted, which looked into the entire statute for four months. Its report, he said, was then presented in the apex body of the CII, which came out with the recommendations released by him now. He said the un-Islamic provisions were draconian and should be amended accordingly.
“The CII has not been swayed by the general prevailing environment in which the NAB law is likely to be fundamentally amended because of almost similar views prevailing in the government and opposition,” Qibla Ayaz said to a question. It will be instructive to have a look at the clauses declared un-Islamic by the CII to gauge their severity on the accused for a long time.
These sections 14(d), 15(a) and 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 deal with burden of proof, presumption against accused accepting illegal gratification, disqualification to contest elections or to hold public office, and tender of pardon respectively.
Section 14(d) reads the burden of proof that an accused used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order, or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on the accused, and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption. The prosecution shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused.
Section 15(a) says where an accused person is convicted of an offence under the NAO, he shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any province.
Any accused person who has availed the benefit of sub-Section (b) of Section 25 [plea bargain and voluntary return] shall also be deemed to have been convicted for an offence under the NAO, and shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any province.
Section 26 reads at any stage of inquiry, investigation or trial, the NAB chairman may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to any offence, tender a full or conditional pardon to such a person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to that offence including the names of the persons involved therein whether as principals or abettors or otherwise.
Every person accepting a tender of pardon shall be examined by a magistrate and shall also be examined as a witness in the subsequent trial. The person to whom pardon has been granted shall not in the case of a full pardon be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was granted, and, in the case of conditional pardon, be awarded a punishment or penalty higher or other than that specified in the grant of pardon notwithstanding the punishment or penalty authorised by law.Where the NAB chairman certifies that in his opinion, any person who has accepted such tender has, either by willfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence through willful or reckless misstatement, not complied with the condition on which the tender of pardon was made, such a person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the said matter, including the offence of giving false evidence, which he knows or ought to know is false. Any statement made before a magistrate by a person who has accepted a tender of pardon may be given in evidence against him at the trial.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/nzhroGXvdvo
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/nzhroGXvdvo/596921-cii-wakes-up-after-2-decades-to-declare-provisions-of-nab-law-un-islamic)
Particularly high-profile politicians have been worst hit as they have to land in jail and face lifelong disqualification to hold public office because of the draconian provisions, now described as un-Islamic by the CII.
Handcuffing of the accused by NAB, which has been despised by the CII, has also often been denounced by many circles. Same is the case with prolonged detention in the NAB custody prior to the lodging of cases.
When contacted by The News, CII Chairman Dr Qibla Ayaz said that the CII chief and members are appointed for three years, and it is for the previous organisational structure to state as to why they did not review the NAB law from the Islamic point of view since it was promulgated in 1999.
He said when some months back, handcuffing of educationists, including Mujahid Kamran and Akram Chaudhry by NAB surfaced, the issue was raised in a CII meeting that was in progress at the time. It was then concluded that an accused could only be hand-cuffed if there are chances that he would commit violence or abscond. Without these reasons, such an action is un-Islamic, he said.
The CII chief said that it was decided in that meeting that the NAB law should be reviewed in totality and a committee headed by former chief justice of the Peshawar High Court Raza Khan was constituted, which looked into the entire statute for four months. Its report, he said, was then presented in the apex body of the CII, which came out with the recommendations released by him now. He said the un-Islamic provisions were draconian and should be amended accordingly.
“The CII has not been swayed by the general prevailing environment in which the NAB law is likely to be fundamentally amended because of almost similar views prevailing in the government and opposition,” Qibla Ayaz said to a question. It will be instructive to have a look at the clauses declared un-Islamic by the CII to gauge their severity on the accused for a long time.
These sections 14(d), 15(a) and 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 deal with burden of proof, presumption against accused accepting illegal gratification, disqualification to contest elections or to hold public office, and tender of pardon respectively.
Section 14(d) reads the burden of proof that an accused used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order, or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on the accused, and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption. The prosecution shall first make out a reasonable case against the accused.
Section 15(a) says where an accused person is convicted of an offence under the NAO, he shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he is released after serving the sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any province.
Any accused person who has availed the benefit of sub-Section (b) of Section 25 [plea bargain and voluntary return] shall also be deemed to have been convicted for an offence under the NAO, and shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any province.
Section 26 reads at any stage of inquiry, investigation or trial, the NAB chairman may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to any offence, tender a full or conditional pardon to such a person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to that offence including the names of the persons involved therein whether as principals or abettors or otherwise.
Every person accepting a tender of pardon shall be examined by a magistrate and shall also be examined as a witness in the subsequent trial. The person to whom pardon has been granted shall not in the case of a full pardon be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was granted, and, in the case of conditional pardon, be awarded a punishment or penalty higher or other than that specified in the grant of pardon notwithstanding the punishment or penalty authorised by law.Where the NAB chairman certifies that in his opinion, any person who has accepted such tender has, either by willfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence through willful or reckless misstatement, not complied with the condition on which the tender of pardon was made, such a person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the said matter, including the offence of giving false evidence, which he knows or ought to know is false. Any statement made before a magistrate by a person who has accepted a tender of pardon may be given in evidence against him at the trial.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/nzhroGXvdvo
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/nzhroGXvdvo/596921-cii-wakes-up-after-2-decades-to-declare-provisions-of-nab-law-un-islamic)