In the Pakistani context, it is difficult to ignore how the elite anti-corruption body’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been simultaneously seen as a necessary instrument of accountability and a tool of political containment. On the one hand, the idea of an independent agency empowered to take on the abuse of public office and the diversion of state resources is compelling. On the other, repeated arrests of opposition politicians, sometimes unproven, have raised concerns about selective enforcement, lack of clear evidence, and political victimization. For example, 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 story is illustrative. In September 2020, NAB arrested him in a case of money laundering and assets above means. His son, Hamza Shehbaz Sharif, also faced NAB investigations: in June 2019 he was arrested at the Lahore High Court on charges of laundering money and assets beyond his means. But then in July 2023, an accountability court acquitted both the father and son in the Rs 7 billion money laundering case, after the NAB investigation reportedly failed to find evidence. In February 2025, another reference of the Ramzan Sugar Mills case, which alleged misappropriation of public funds worth Rs 213 million against him, was also dismissed on the basis that the amount was less than the newly introduced threshold of Rs 500 million. Such high-profile episodes fueled the perception that NAB proceedings risked being shaped by the political context rather than strictly by the merit of the evidence.
In this context, the recent legislative amendments to the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 deserve greater attention. These amendments revised the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO) to redefine the jurisdiction of the NAB: 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 or more was introduced for matters to fall within the NAB’s domain of investigation. These changes explicitly aim to channel NAB resources towards large-scale financial irregularities and avoid overreaching into regulatory and decision-making arenas where misuse may be less easy to quantify.
After the amendment, NAB introduced internal reforms: it established a Central Complaints Cell (CCC) at headquarters and grievance cells at regional offices to examine incoming complaints within fixed deadlines; mandatory prerequisites for registering complaints; discourage anonymous or pseudonymous submissions by holding applicants responsible if the intent is in bad faith; submit affidavits/commitments from complainants; replace the term “Defendant” with “Defendant” and keep the identity confidential until proven guilty; establish Accountability Facilitation Cells (AFC) for parliamentarians (under the Speaker/President) and bureaucrats (under Establishment Division/Chief Secretaries); Business Facilitation Cells (BFCs) at NAB Headquarters and Regional Offices to promote transparency and business-friendly processes; and internal accountability mechanisms, such as an Internal Accountability Cell, monthly open public hearings in regional offices, and visitor feedback systems.
On the operational side, there has been digitization – electronic recording of witness statements, AI-powered electronic investigation tools (for bank accounts, transaction analysis), a paperless e-office system, new sub-offices in remote/strategic regions (Gwadar, Chaman) and a right of audience for the accused at any stage of the case, and a High Level Committee to review cases at any stage for errors or omissions. Pakistan Anti-Corruption Academy (PACA) was established to enhance the capacity of the institution and adopt modern global investigation methods and techniques.
The reported impact of these reforms is significant: business confidence is said to be on the path to recovery, through closer links with chambers of commerce; Collaboration with government departments has reportedly improved bureaucratic trust; the number of initial complaints decreased from 2,338 to 1,639 and, after verification, from 79 to 20, suggesting more rigorous analysis and fewer frivolous cases. A new Directorate of Lands was established through which more than 4.53 million acres of government land, valued at approximately eight trillion rupees, were recovered. Additionally, Rs 124,860 crore was returned to 121,635 citizens affected by Ponzi schemes and real estate frauds through a transparent online system.
The NAB’s actions against money laundering were also notable. Successful operations were carried out in 21 high-profile cases involving illegal assets worth around Rs 118 billion. To track foreign assets, NAB signed memorandums of understanding with several countries, including Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, China, Sri Lanka, Russia and Tajikistan, and strengthened information sharing through Interpol and other international networks.
Since its inception, the NAB had recovered Rs 883.58 billion in 23 years till February 2023. Surprisingly, between March 2023 and October 2025, barely two years and seven months, the recoveries amounted to Rs 8,397.75 billion. In total, NAB has recovered Rs 9,281.33 billion (9.28 trillion), an unprecedented achievement compared to accountability agencies around the world. Interestingly, in the last two years, NAB received a budget of only Rs 15.33 billion, which means that for every rupee spent, Rs 548 was recovered, a ratio that sets an example globally.
The hope is that these reforms will usher in a more balanced accountability architecture: one in which the watchdog is seen not as a weapon of the winner but as a guardian of the public interest, in which investigations are based on clear evidence rather than political expediency; one where businesses and bureaucracy feel safe rather than targeted; and one in which ordinary citizens, the primary stakeholders in public accountability, see restitution, justice, and transparency delivered. If these ambitions are sustained, the office can gradually rebuild public trust and emerge as a genuinely credible mechanism for holding power to account.
(The writer is a governance specialist)
