EDITORIAL: Accountability laws exist to protect the public interest, not to create technical escape routes for those accused of violating it. That is why the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB’s) reported consideration of an inflation-based legal interpretation to preserve its jurisdiction over corruption cases deserves careful support. If inflation has increased the financial threshold that determines NAB’s jurisdiction, there is a compelling argument that the value of the alleged public loss should be viewed through the same lens.
The issue has arisen because amendments linking NAB’s jurisdictional threshold to inflation have reportedly raised the effective minimum amount from Rs500 million to well over Rs800 million.
As a result, a significant number of ongoing inquiries and investigations may no longer fall within the bureau’s jurisdiction despite involving allegations that previously qualified for prosecution.
The proposal now under consideration seeks to address this anomaly by applying the same inflation adjustment to the value of the alleged loss suffered by the victim, whether that victim is an individual, a public institution or the national exchequer.
The underlying principle is difficult to dispute. Inflation affects both sides of the equation. If an accused is permitted to argue that inflation has raised the statutory threshold beyond the amount allegedly involved, then elementary fairness suggests that the erosion in the value of the money allegedly lost should also be recognised.
Applying inflation selectively risks creating an outcome that rewards the passage of time rather than preserving the integrity of the law.
This should not be viewed as an attempt to expand NAB’s powers beyond what parliament intended. It is, instead, an effort to ensure that the same economic reality is applied consistently.
A legal provision designed to account for inflation should not operate exclusively to the advantage of one party while ignoring its equally obvious effect on the public loss that the accountability process is meant to address.
Pakistan’s accountability framework has long struggled with procedural complications, legislative revisions and prolonged litigation.
Too often, public attention shifts away from the substance of corruption allegations towards technical disputes over jurisdiction, procedure or interpretation. While legal safeguards are essential in every justice system, they should not evolve into mechanisms through which accountability itself becomes increasingly difficult to enforce.
This is particularly important in corruption cases involving public funds. Inflation steadily reduces the purchasing power of money over time.
The amount allegedly misappropriated several years ago may represent a substantially larger economic loss in today’s terms. Ignoring that reality; while simultaneously allowing inflation to narrow the scope of accountability results in an imbalance that few members of the public would regard as equitable.
Of course, NAB’s proposal will almost certainly face judicial scrutiny if adopted, and rightly so. Questions involving statutory interpretation ultimately belong before the courts, whose role is to determine whether such an approach is consistent with the law enacted by parliament. Judicial review strengthens the legitimacy of the accountability process and ensures that legal innovation remains anchored within constitutional and statutory limits. That, however, should not discourage serious consideration of the proposal itself.
Public confidence in accountability depends not only on impartial investigations but also on the perception that legal reforms cannot be manipulated to defeat their original purpose. Laws should evolve to improve fairness, transparency and due process. They should not inadvertently create opportunities for alleged corruption cases to disappear because economic conditions have changed while the alleged public loss is treated as though it remained frozen in time.
Pakistan has repeatedly pledged to strengthen accountability and improve governance. Those commitments carry little meaning if legal loopholes gradually achieve what acquittals on merit could not. The purpose of accountability legislation is to ensure that allegations of corruption are examined according to law. It cannot fulfil that purpose if jurisdiction quietly evaporates through technical anomalies that bear little relationship to the gravity of the alleged offence.
Inflation may diminish the value of money. It should not diminish accountability.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments