• IMF highlights need for risk-based asset verification
• Says NAB’s ‘political compromise’ hindering anti-corruption efforts
• Seeks autonomous oversight body to audit internal control processes
ISLAMABAD: With the International Monetary Fund (IMF) describing the country’s top anti-corruption agency, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), as a “political compromise”, the government has agreed to the publication of asset declarations of high-level public officials in 2026 and their risk-based verification to improve the country’s accountability and integrity standards against widespread corruption.
According to IMF’s Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment (GCDA), released by the Ministry of Finance as a structural benchmark of the ongoing $7 billion loan programme, the two sides have agreed under a short-term action plan to “strengthen accountability and integrity among high-level federal civil servants by initiating the publication of asset declarations in 2026, and introduce risk-based verification of asset declarations”.
In the longer term, the two sides agreed to “consider establishing a centralised authority to collect, digitise and publish asset declarations of high-level public officials with adequate powers and resources to conduct risk-based verification”, a vision that may remain elusive given the expiry of the IMF programme.
The lender also required the government in the medium term to enhance NAB’s independence and effectiveness in investigating high-level corruption by strengthening appointment procedures of its head, enhancing investigative capacities and establishing robust internal accountability.
The report noted with concern that disciplinary actions related to corruption in the government machinery, particularly senior revenue officials, were inadequate. Their investigative powers were limited to conducting interviews and checking asset declarations.
“Penalties imposed can range from minor (e.g. withholding a promotion) to major (e.g. dismissal from service), but do not include a proposal for criminal prosecution” as criminal prosecution is legally possible “but occurs only occasionally”, it said.
The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) could not provide data on the number of criminal prosecutions in recent years. While criminal prosecution can serve as a crucial deterrent in fighting corruption by imposing significant consequences on corrupt actions, “its effectiveness for the FBR is limited due to its limited application in practice and the de facto exclusion of high-ranked staff”.
In provinces, anti-corruption agencies require permission from the highest provincial authorities before investigations begin. “In the context of patronage politics in Pakistan, this creates risks that corruption investigations will not prosper against allies or supporters of the provincial governors. Investigative capacities and training are further hindered by their lack of access to databases, including on the national identification system, tax information, asset declarations and bank accounts,” the report said.
The report noted that the primary issue with asset declaration of government officials was that they were not subject to robust risk-based verification, “which also blunts its preventive impact”.
Moreover, the asset declaration system in Pakistan remained fragmented. The asset declaration requirements for “government servants” or “holders of public office”, active members of the armed forces and the judiciary are distinct.
Serving members of the armed forces are also subject to separate asset declaration rules, which do not include requirements for declarations to be made public. All public office-holders and government servants (federal as well as provincial), as taxpayers, are required to declare income returns and wealth statements annually to the FBR under the Income Tax Ordinance, but these are for tax compliance and not for anti-corruption purposes.
As for the judiciary, every judge is required to submit their asset declarations to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, but these are not made public.
Notably, asset declarations of the NAB chair and other senior officials cannot be disclosed due to privacy concerns. “It is critical, however, that there is a robust, independent and credible system for collecting and verifying asset declarations,” the report said.
To supplement verification efforts, procedures for lifestyle monitoring (investigating a public official’s standard of living and comparing it with their declared income and assets) would be another valuable tool to detect illicit enrichment and deter corruption.
The report said the current system for appointing the NAB chief was a political compromise. The “agreement between the administration and opposition on the candidate for the NAB chairman lends itself to political compromises rather than a merit-based, open and competitive selection process”, it said.
It advised that following global best anti-corruption practices, the selection process for the NAB chief should be strengthened by designating a multi-sectoral stakeholder commission with representatives from administration, opposition, judiciary, civil service, academia and civil society to conduct an open, rules-based, rigorous and transparent competition.
It also questioned the broader qualification criteria for prosecutors and the NAB chairman, which allowed only retired officials like former chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, chief justice of a high court, officer of the armed forces, or Grade 22 or equivalent federal government officer, which already limited the pool of candidates.
Finally, an autonomous and multi-stakeholder oversight body should be formed to audit the internal control processes for significantly improving transparency and legitimacy in NAB and minimise risks of politicisation, the IMF advised.
Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2025
