In Pakistan, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) holds sweeping powers to investigate corruption across public offices—excluding the military. Yet, questions persist over its role, independence, and the selective application of accountability laws.
Notably, there is no lower limit defined in the NAB Ordinance for the amount of corruption it can pursue. However, in administrative practice, cases involving corruption below Rs. 50 million are typically referred to the Anti-Corruption Department or the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
A Legal Threshold with Political Implications
Amendments introduced in 2022 sought to redefine what constitutes a punishable act under NAB’s jurisdiction. Section 5(o) of the revised ordinance established a threshold of Rs. 500 million, limiting NAB’s prosecution to cases exceeding that amount. Although the Supreme Court restored the amendment last year, the court also questioned the legitimacy of this threshold — which nonetheless remains intact within the amended ordinance.
Help us expose the truth
The Azadi Times is funded by readers like you. No corporate sponsors. No government influence. Just fearless reporting.
This effectively means that NAB may not investigate cases involving less than Rs. 500 million, raising serious concerns about loopholes and selective accountability.
Interestingly, Section 5(o) also mentions NAB’s authority over offenses listed in its Schedule, which includes various criminal acts without any financial threshold, creating a grey area that could be used at the discretion of authorities when politically convenient.
Extension to Pakistan-Administered Jammu and Kashmir
In Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir (PAJK), adapting the NAB framework into the local Accountability Bureau Act is expected to bring structural changes. Previously, complainants were required to identify themselves and prove allegations of corruption at their own expense. Under the new provisions, anonymous complaints may trigger investigations, and the accused will now bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of their assets.
If they fail to justify their income sources, they will be presumed guilty — a significant shift in accountability procedure. Moreover, the merging of the Anti-Corruption Department into the Accountability Bureau means that even minor corruption cases will now fall under the Bureau’s mandate, with complaints becoming easier to file and investigate.
Despite this administrative alignment, the Accountability Bureau of Azad Kashmir will remain autonomous and outside NAB’s direct control, functioning under the region’s own governance structure.
Accountability or Instrument of Power?
Historically, anti-corruption institutions in South Asia — including NAB — have been used more as instruments of political control than genuine vehicles of transparency. Both military and civilian governments have allegedly weaponized these bodies to silence opponents, while shielding their own ranks.
This pattern is not unique to Pakistan. Across the postcolonial world, corruption often serves as a symptom of a deeper, dependent economic order — a byproduct of elite structures shaped by colonial legacies and global capital. In such systems, bureaucracies and political elites operate as clients rather than sovereign actors, incentivized to maintain dependency rather than reform it.
As analysts point out, corruption becomes less a moral failure and more a structural feature — sustained by systems where power, privilege, and patronage are distributed top-down. The rhetoric of anti-corruption, then, often becomes a political weapon—to discipline, to control, and to legitimize existing hierarchies.
The Broader Question
The real question for Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir is whether this restructured Accountability Bureau will genuinely curb corruption — or simply replicate the same coercive and selective mechanisms seen elsewhere in Pakistan.
For a region that has long struggled for political and economic self-determination, true accountability will depend not merely on laws and ordinances but on public empowerment and transparency from below.
As the system stands, the line between accountability and authority remains dangerously blurred.
