ISLAMABAD: The Transparency International (TI) has urged the government to implement all the articles of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) to win the support of donors and Friends of Pakistan.


Whereas the discussion of reopening of Swiss cases against President Asif Ali Zardari is touching its lowest ebb and the Attorney General of Pakistan has also resigned over the same row, TI, has come up with the procedure of proceedings in Switzerland as it talks of UNCAC to counter corruption which was duly ratified by Pakistan and Swiss government on 11 August 2007.



UNCAC explains how the corruption money placed in foreign banks could be brought back to Pakistan as the convention is binding on both, Pakistan and Switzerland.



Moreover the New Accountability Law being discussed by National Assembly Standing Committee on Law and Justice is stuck on international cooperation and legal assistance from a foreign state which will directly affect the Swiss cases of the President of Pakistan in the days to come.


Syed Adil Gilani, Chairman TI Pakistan while talking to The News said that TI has been urging the government to implement all the articles of UNCAC and has been writing letters to the standing committee which is framing the new accountability law regarding UNCAC’s implementation.



“In our letters we have mentioned that if Pakistan violates UNCAC it will amount to halting anti-corruption plan and practically ousting the accountability agenda from government priorities.



In such a situation the donor agencies, including Friends of Pakistan may refuse to support funding for Pakistan, as Pakistan would have defaulted on anti-corruption actions it has agreed to take on August 11, 2007”. He said that the articles 54 and 55 of UNCAC were self explanatory and best fit in the present situation of Pakistan where the corruption money is likely to be pursued in Switzerland.



Article 55 of UNCAC says, “International cooperation for purposes of confiscation: “1. A State Party that has received a request from another State Party having jurisdiction over an offense established in accordance with this Convention for confiscation of proceeds of crime, property, equipment or other instrumentalities referred to in article 31, paragraph 1, of this Convention situated in its territory shall, to the greatest extent possible within its domestic legal system:


2. Following a request made by another State Party having jurisdiction over an offense established in accordance with this Convention, the requested State Party shall take measures to identify, trace and freeze or seize proceeds of crime, property, equipment or other instrumentalities referred to in article 31, paragraph 1, of this Convention for the purpose of eventual confiscation to be ordered either by the requesting State Party or, pursuant to a request under paragraph 1 of this article, by the requested State Party”.


While Article 54 states, “Mechanisms for recovery of property through international cooperation in confiscation:


1. Each State Party, in order to provide mutual legal assistance pursuant to article 55 of this Convention with respect to property acquired through or involved in the commission of an offence established in accordance with this Convention, shall, in accordance with its domestic law: (a) Take such measures as may be necessary to permit its competent authorities to give effect to an order of confiscation issued by a court of another State Party; (b) Take such measures as may be necessary to permit its competent authorities, where they have jurisdiction, to order the confiscation of such property of foreign origin by adjudication of an offence of money-laundering or such other offence as may be within its jurisdiction or by other procedures authorized under its domestic law; and (c) Consider taking such measures as may be necessary to allow confiscation of such property without a criminal conviction in cases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence or in other appropriate cases.”


While members of the committee discussing the new accountability law say that the government wanted a mere inspection and gathering of evidence clause for international cooperation in the new law they wanted section 21 of the NAB ordinance to be part of new accountability commission which is complete and compact.