In the Pakistani context, it is hard to ignore how over the years the elite anti-corruption agency National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has been seen as both a necessary instrument of accountability and a tool of political contention. 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 hand, the repeated arrests of opposition politicians, sometimes later unproven, have raised concerns about selective use, lack of clear evidence and political victimization. For example, several members of the current federal cabinet and even the current prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, were in NAB custody before being acquitted in court.
Shehbaz Sharif’s own case history is illustrative. In September 2020, NAB arrested him in a case of money laundering and assets without funds. His son, Hamza Shehbaz Sharif, also faced NAB investigations: in June 2019, he was arrested in the Lahore High Court on charges of money laundering and disproportionate assets. But then in July 2023, an accountability court acquitted both father and son in the Rs 7 billion money laundering case after NAB’s probe allegedly failed to find evidence. In February 2025, another reference from the Ramzan Sugar Mills case alleging misuse of public funds of Rs 213 million against them was also dismissed on the basis that the amount fell below the newly introduced threshold of Rs 500 million. Such high-profile episodes fuel the perception that NAB’s cases risked being shaped by political context rather than purely by probative value.
It is against this background 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 changed to require proof of financial gain and a monetary threshold of Rs 500 million and above was introduced for cases to fall within NAB’s investigative domain. These changes explicitly aim to channel NAB’s resources against large-scale financial misconduct and to avoid overstepping decision-making and regulatory domains where abuse may be less easily quantifiable.
Following the change, NAB has introduced internal reforms: creation of a Central Complaints Cell (CCC) at headquarters and complaint cells at regional bureaus to screen incoming complaints within fixed time frames; mandatory prerequisites for registering complaints; to discourage anonymous or pseudonymous submissions by holding applicants liable if the intent is malicious; introduction of statements/undertakings from complainants; to replace the term “accused” with “accused” and to keep the identity confidential until proven guilty; creation of Accountability Facilitation Cells (AFCs) for parliamentarians (under the Speaker/Chairman) and bureaucrats (under the 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 at regional bureaus and visitor feedback systems.
On the operational side, digitization has taken place: electronic recording of testimony, AI-powered e-investigative tools (for bank account, transaction analysis), a paperless e-office system, new sub-offices in remote/strategic regions (Gwadar, Chaman), and a right of access for accused at any stage of the case to review mistrials at any stage of the case and a high/level committee. Pakistan Anti-Corruption Academy (PACA) was established to increase the capacity of the institution and to apply modern global methods and techniques for research and investigation.
The reported effects of these reforms are meaningful: business confidence is said to be moving through a closer link with chambers of commerce; cooperation with public authorities has reportedly improved bureaucratic trust; the number of initial complaints fell from 2,338 to 1,639 and after verification from 79 to 20, indicating stricter screening and fewer frivolous cases. A new Directorate of Lands was established through which over 4.53 million acres of government land, worth approximately eight trillion rupees, was reclaimed. Additionally, 124.86 billion rupees were returned to 121,635 citizens affected by Ponzi schemes and housing scams through a transparent online system.
NAB’s anti-money laundering actions were also notable. Successful operations were conducted in 21 high-profile cases involving illicit assets worth around 118 billion rupees. 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 establishment, NAB had recovered 883.58 billion rupees in 23 years till February 2023. Notably, between March 2023 and October 2025, just two years and seven months, the recovery 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 that 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 seen not as the weapon of the victor, but as a guardian of the public interest, where investigations are based on clear evidence rather than political convenience; one where business and bureaucracy feel safe rather than purposeful; and one where ordinary citizens, the ultimate stakeholders in public accountability, see restitution, justice and transparency delivered. If these ambitions hold, the agency can gradually rebuild public trust and emerge as a truly credible mechanism for holding power to account.
(The author is a governance specialist)
