NAB’s 179 mega cases: Where did convictions go?

More than a decade after the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) presented a list of 179 “mega corruption cases” before the Supreme Court, the fate of those cases has raised questions about the strength of the allegations and evidence behind the classification.

According to the latest official status previously updated by NAB, 90 of the 179 cases have been disposed of. Meanwhile, 86 references are still under trial and three investigations remain ongoing.

NAB was contacted for the latest figures, but the updated information could not be shared with The News.

Sources said that even after the latest update, questions would remain about whether the bureau had overstated the nature and seriousness of a large number of cases.

The cases were declared “mega corruption cases” by the NAB administration at the time. The list was first presented before the Supreme Court in 2015 following directions from the court.

At that time, NAB divided the 179 cases into 81 inquiries, 52 investigations and 46 references that had reached the trial stage.

The bureau subsequently stated that the cases had been given the highest priority. It had also promised to conclude them quickly without compromising transparency or merit.

However, almost 10 years later, the available record does not show a large number of convictions in cases originally described as mega corruption scandals.

According to a report published in The News on June 22, 2024, based on NAB’s position as of April 30, 2024, only 10 of the 179 cases had resulted in convictions. Around 19 cases had ended in acquittals.

At that time, 87 references were still under trial, while 85 cases had been disposed of.

Sources pointed out that a pending case cannot be treated as either proven or disproven. However, when a list is publicly presented as comprising “mega corruption cases”, the eventual judicial outcome becomes an important measure of whether the original allegations were supported by sufficient evidence.

The record also indicates that a significant number of cases ended before reaching the trial stage.

Figures available on NAB’s official website show that of the original 81 inquiries, 45 were converted into investigations. Six resulted in voluntary returns, while 30 were closed, merged or transferred.

Of the total 97 investigations, including those converted from inquiries, 73 references were filed. Four cases resulted in plea bargains, while 17 were closed.

Political cases included in the list provide some notable examples. Several prominent political figures were named in these cases, but very few appear to have resulted in convictions. Many were either acquitted or had their cases closed.

This has raised questions about how allegations considered serious enough to be placed before the Supreme Court as “mega corruption cases” eventually ended in acquittals or closures.

The issue becomes more significant when the financial amounts attached to some of the cases are examined.

One source said that if allegations classified as “mega corruption” failed to result in convictions after nearly a decade, while a considerable number of cases were closed or ended in acquittals, the credibility of the original classification should be examined.

The source said the central question was not merely why the 179 cases had taken so long to conclude.

The bigger question, according to the source, was whether NAB had actually presented 179 established mega corruption cases before the Supreme Court in 2015, or whether a collection of allegations, inquiries, investigations and references had been presented in a manner that made them appear to be already established mega scandals.

Sources stressed that merely placing a case on a NAB list does not establish corruption. Any allegation must ultimately be supported by evidence and, where contested, determined through the judicial process.

After nearly a decade, sources said, the record of the 179 cases provides sufficient grounds for Parliament, the judiciary and NAB itself to examine how the cases were selected.

They said there was also a need to determine what evidence existed when the cases were labelled “mega”, how much money was actually recovered, and why such a large number of cases failed to result in convictions.