EDITORIAL: Among the many findings and recommendations put forward by the IMF’s Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment (GCDA) last year, perhaps the most consequential pertained to the functioning of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The assessment had highlighted how graft and malfeasance have seeped into almost every layer of governance, underscoring the urgent need for a corruption-fighting apparatus that is efficient, transparent and accountable in all aspects of its functioning, from appointments of senior officials and the conduct of investigations to the scrutiny of its own performance.
The IMF had also emphasised that NAB’s effectiveness hinged on its ability to operate free from political influence, with genuine institutional independence, adequate investigative powers and resources, and strong oversight mechanisms to hold it accountable. Absent these safeguards, any serious effort to combat corruption is destined to fall short.
As has now been reported in the media, the IMF’s latest staff report has once again called for amendments to the NAB Ordinance by January 2027, aimed at overhauling the appointment process for the NAB chairman through a commission comprising representatives of the opposition, judiciary and civil society among others.
The changes would also require the publication of investigation and prosecution rules, along with annual enforcement statistics, to improve transparency. Additionally, the IMF has set structural benchmarks for the government to agree on a methodology for a corruption risk assessment, forming the basis of a NAB-led anti-corruption action plan to identify and publish vulnerabilities across the 10 most at-risk government departments through institutional-level reviews.
These proposals have the potential to fundamentally alter NAB’s functioning. Their success, however, depends on genuine willingness within the government and NAB itself to embrace transparency and institutional accountability. Unfortunately, the NAB chairman’s recent sharply critical remarks regarding the IMF’s role and the GCDA suggest otherwise. If the reforms envisioned by the lender are implemented, it appears they will be carried out reluctantly and under external pressure, an embarrassing indictment for a country that consistently languishes in global transparency and corruption indices. As was noted recently in this space, Pakistan is estimated to lose up to 6.5 percent of its GDP annually to corruption, amounting to roughly USD20-25 billion. These are losses it can scarcely afford amid its ongoing economic fragility. It is imperative, then, that the government expedites the proposed amendments while simultaneously implementing the IMF’s broader recommendations aimed at addressing corruption vulnerabilities within state institutions.
It has long been evident that NAB has lost sight of its original purpose. Established in 1999 as an autonomous federal institution tasked with investigating corruption and prosecuting those who misuse public office and assets, it has over the years evolved into a deeply politicised body associated with selective accountability.
A widely held perception, grounded in repeated experience, is that those who fall out of favour with the ruling dispensation quickly find themselves facing NAB inquiries and prosecutions, often in ways that appear to disregard due process and established investigative norms.
Conversely, individuals aligned with the government of the day, or those possessing sufficient wealth, influence or connections frequently appear insulated from scrutiny altogether. The result is that the truly powerful rarely face meaningful accountability.
This is precisely why clearly defined and publicly available rules governing investigations and prosecutions are essential.
NAB’s senior leadership must comprise individuals unwilling to bend before political pressure and backed by a legislatively guaranteed autonomy that cannot be easily undermined. Just as importantly, mechanisms must exist to hold NAB accountable for abuses of its own authority.
The ultimate objective should be the creation of an accountability apparatus that is principled, not selective. Few countries need an impartial and effective anti-corruption body more urgently than Pakistan, and delay is no longer an option.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments