The Reckoning Within

NAB's Journey from Controversy to Credibility

In the Pakistani context, it is hard to ignore how the elite anti-corruption body National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has over the years been simultaneously seen as a necessary instrument of accountability and a tool of political contention. On one hand, the idea of an independent agency empowered to take on misuse of public office and diversion of state resources is compelling. On the other, the repeated arrests of opposition politicians, sometimes later unproven, have raised concerns about selective application, lack of clear evidence, and political victimization. For instance, several members of the current federal cabinet and even the current prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, found themselves in NAB custody before being acquitted in court.

Shehbaz Sharif's own case story is illustrative. In September 2020, NAB arrested him in a money-laundering and assets-beyond-means case. His son, Hamza Shehbaz Sharif, also faced NAB investigations: in June 2019 he was arrested inside the Lahore High Court on charges of money laundering and assets beyond means. But then in July 2023 an accountability court acquitted both father and son in the Rs 7 billion money-laundering case, after NAB's investigation reportedly failed to find evidence. In February 2025, another reference of the Ramzan Sugar Mills case, alleging misuse of public funds of Rs 213 million against them was likewise dismissed on the basis that the amount fell below the newly introduced threshold of Rs 500 million. Such high-profile episodes feed the perception that NAB's proceedings risked being shaped by political context rather than strictly by merit of evidence.

It is against this backdrop that the recent legislative amendments to the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 deserve closer attention. These amendments revised the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) to redefine NAB's jurisdiction: matters of federal, provincial or local taxation, decisions of federal and provincial cabinets/ committees and regulatory bodies have been excluded from its scope. The definition of corruption and corrupt practices was amended to require evidence of monetary gain and a monetary threshold of Rs 500 million and above was introduced for matters to fall within NAB's investigative domain. These changes aim explicitly to channel NAB's resources toward large-scale financial wrongdoing and to avoid overreach into decision-making and regulatory domains where misuse may be less easily quantifiable.

Post-amendment, NAB has introduced internal reforms: setting up a Central Complaint Cell (CCC) at headquarters and complaint cells at regional bureaus to screen incoming complaints within fixed timeframes; mandatory prerequisites for registering complaints; discouraging anonymous or pseudonymous submissions by making applicants liable if intent is mala-fide; introducing affidavits/ undertakings from complainants; replacing the term "Accused" with "Defendant" and keeping identity confidential until guilt is proven; establishing Accountability Facilitation Cells (AFCs) for parliamentarians (under the Speaker/Chairman) and bureaucrats (under Establishment Division/Chief Secretaries); Business Facilitation Cells (BFCs) at NAB HQs and regional offices to promote transparency and business-friendly processes; and internal accountability mechanisms like an Internal Accountability Cell, monthly open public hearings at regional bureaus and visitor-feedback systems.

On the operational side there has been digitisation: electronic recording of witness statements, AI-driven e-investigation tools (for bank-account, transaction-analysis), a paperless e-Office system, new sub-offices in remote/ strategic regions (Gwadar, Chaman), and a right of audience for the defendant at any stage of the case, and a High-Level Committee to review cases at any stage for errors/omissions. The Pakistan Anti-Corruption Academy (PACA) was established to enhance the institution's capacity and to adopt modern global methods and techniques of research and investigation.

The reported impact of these reforms is meaningful: business confidence is said to be on the recovery path, through closer liaison with chambers of commerce; collaboration with government departments has reportedly improved bureaucratic confidence; the number of initial complaints dropped from 2,338 to 1,639 and after verification from 79 to 20, suggesting more rigorous screening and fewer frivolous cases. A new Land Directorate was established through which over 4.53 million acres of government land, valued at approximately eight trillion rupees, were recovered. Additionally, 124.86 billion rupees were returned to 121,635 citizens affected by Ponzi schemes and housing frauds through a transparent online system.

NAB's actions against money laundering were also notable. Successful operations were carried out in 21 high-profile cases involving illegal assets worth around 118 billion rupees. To trace foreign assets, NAB signed Memorandums of Understanding with several countries, including Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, China, Sri Lanka, Russia, and Tajikistan, and strengthened information exchange through Interpol and other international networks.

Since its establishment, NAB had recovered 883.58 billion rupees in 23 years until February 2023. Remarkably, between March 2023 and October 2025, just two years and seven months, recoveries amounted to 8,397.75 billion rupees. In total, NAB has recovered 9,281.33 billion rupees (9.28 trillion), an unprecedented achievement compared to accountability agencies worldwide. Interestingly, in the past two years, NAB received a budget of only 15.33 billion rupees, which means for every rupee spent, 548 rupees were recovered, a ratio that sets an example globally.

The hope is that these reforms mark the beginning of a more balanced accountability architecture: one where the watchdog is perceived not as a weapon of the winner but a guardian of the public interest, one where investigations proceed on clear evidence rather than political convenience; one where business and bureaucracy feel secure rather than targeted; and one where ordinary citizens, the ultimate stakeholders in public accountability, see restitution, fairness and transparency delivered. If these ambitions hold, the bureau may gradually rebuild public trust and emerge as a genuinely credible mechanism for holding power to account.

(The writer is a Governance Specialist)