NAB needs reform, not more headlines

September 14, 2026

The latest figures about the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) raise a serious question: is the country’s main anti-corruption body actually delivering results? NAB once presented 179 cases before the Supreme Court as ‘mega corruption cases’. The cases involved major allegations and some of the country’s most prominent political and public figures. Yet, after almost a decade, only a very small number of these cases have ended in convictions. The latest figures show that only two of the 179 cases have resulted in convictions. Trials are still continuing in 21 references, while several cases have ended in acquittals, closures, withdrawals or other outcomes. This record cannot simply be explained by saying that the cases are complicated or that the courts take too long. If NAB had strong evidence, professional investigations and properly prepared cases, there should have been a much clearer record of convictions after so many years. At the same time, the courts also need to examine why corruption cases take so long. A justice system that takes years to decide important cases weakens public confidence. If existing judicial procedures are responsible for unnecessary delays, they should be reviewed and changed.

NAB, too, clearly needs reform. The bureau should not announce large numbers of ‘mega corruption cases’ unless there is strong preliminary evidence. An inquiry or investigation is not proof of corruption. A reference is also not a conviction. There is another important point. Plea bargains or voluntary returns should not be presented as a substitute for convictions. Recovery of money may be useful, but an anti-corruption agency must ultimately be judged by the quality of its investigations and its ability to prove cases in court. A bargain deal cannot automatically be counted as a successful prosecution. The figures therefore point to a deeper institutional problem. Either NAB needs major reforms, or judicial rules and procedures need to be changed — and possibly both. Pakistan needs an accountability system that is fast, fair and based on solid evidence. Accountability should neither become a political weapon nor end in years of unresolved cases. After nearly a decade, the question is simple: if 179 cases were called “mega corruption cases”, why have so few produced convictions?