Accountability court acquits Raja Pervez Ashraf in illegal appointments case.

ISLAMABAD -- In line with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) (Amendment) Ordinance 2019, an accountability court in Lahore acquitted former premier Raja Pervez Ashraf and others in a case pertaining to illegal appointments in the Gujranwala Electric Power Company (Gepco) during his stint as federal minister for water and power, Express News reported.

The reference, filed by the anti-graft watchdog in 2016, accused the former minister of misusing his powers by appointing 437 people in Gepco without merit.

Former secretary water and power Shahid Rafi, former Gepco board of governors including Saleem Arif, Malik Muhammad Razi Abbas and Wazir Ali were also accused in the case.

In December 2019, President Dr Arif Alvi promulgated the NAB (Amendment) Ordinance 2019 in a move to limit the sweeping powers of the anti-corruption watchdog to act against any individual accused of financial corruption at will.

The new law offers more protection to public office-holders or government officials while at the same time excludes several financial sectors from the purview of the anti-corruption watchdog.

Under the ordinance, the government mandates the NAB chairman to submit a report on complaints against the bureau to the federal government. Earlier, the NAB chief used to submit such a report to the president.

The development has triggered a debate with some analysts calling it 'NRO-Plus'.

Upon the promulgation of the ordinance, inquiries and investigations shall stand transferred to the respective authorities or departments which administer the relevant laws of taxation, levies or imposts in question.

Trials shall stand transferred from the relevant accountability courts to the criminal courts which deal with offences under the respective laws pertaining to taxation, levies, or imposts in question.

With regard to procedural lapses in any government project or scheme, it says no action under the ordinance shall be taken against any holder of public office unless it is shown that the holder of public office has materially benefitted by gaining any asset or monetary benefit which is disproportionate to his known sources of income, or where such material benefit cannot be reasonably accounted for, and there is evidence to corroborate the acquiring of such material benefit.

Importantly, it reads, no action under the ordinance shall be taken against any holder of public office in any matter pertaining to the rendition of any advice, opinion or report...