LAHORE: Accountability is often portrayed as the cornerstone of good governance, yet its application differs widely across the world. In Pakistan, the greater challenge is selective accountability, where the powerful frequently escape scrutiny while the weak bear the full weight of the law.
Developed countries generally have stronger institutions and greater transparency, but even their justice can be distorted through legal loopholes, expensive litigation and unequal access to legal representation.
Pakistan’s debate on accountability has focused overwhelmingly on politicians and bureaucrats, but much less attention has been paid to the institutions responsible for delivering justice. True accountability cannot stop at the accused. It must also encompass investigators, prosecutors, judges and public officials whose negligence, incompetence or corruption can determine the outcome of a case.
A criminal case involves several actors: the accused, the victim, the investigating officer, the prosecutor and the court. When justice fails, responsibility often lies somewhere within this chain. Yet investigators who conduct poor investigations, prosecutors who fail to present evidence effectively, or officials who deliberately weaken cases seldom face meaningful consequences. The result is delayed justice, wrongful acquittals and, in some cases, punishment of the innocent while the guilty escape.
Rule of law can only flourish when every public office carries both authority and responsibility. From the head of state to the lowest public servant, no individual should enjoy immunity from accountability for criminal misconduct. Likewise, discretionary powers should be exercised transparently and remain subject to judicial and institutional oversight.
The same principle should apply to public appointments. Recruitment and promotions should be based solely on merit, qualifications and experience. Political patronage and personal influence weaken institutions, reduce efficiency and erode public confidence in government.
Corruption presents another glaring example of unequal accountability. Citizens often report having to pay bribes for services that are legally their right, including utility connections, land records and other administrative approvals. Public officials demanding illegal payments for routine services should face swift prosecution, severe penalties and permanent disqualification from public office. Conversely, where a bribe is offered to secure an illegal favour, both the giver and the receiver should be held equally accountable. The law must distinguish between extortion by public officials and collusion to violate the law, while ensuring that neither form of corruption goes unpunished.
Modern technology can strengthen this process. Digital applications, online payments, electronic records, CCTV monitoring and automated approvals can significantly reduce opportunities for discretionary abuse. The less direct contact there is between citizens and officials, the fewer opportunities exist for corruption.
Justice must also recognise the circumstances surrounding an offence. A starving father who steals food for his children and a habitual criminal who repeatedly commits theft cannot be viewed through the same moral lens, even if both have violated the law. While the law must apply to all, sentencing should take account of intent, circumstances and the likelihood of rehabilitation. At the same time, habitual offenders should not be allowed to exploit influence or connections to evade punishment.
Institutional accountability should also extend to the quality of investigations. If an investigating officer deliberately manipulates evidence or conducts a negligent investigation that results in a miscarriage of justice, disciplinary and legal consequences should follow. Similarly, appellate courts and judicial oversight mechanisms should respond promptly where serious procedural failures are identified.
Pakistan’s justice system will earn public confidence only when accountability becomes universal. Laws alone cannot deliver justice unless those entrusted with enforcing them are themselves subject to the same standards they apply to others. Equal treatment before the law is not merely a constitutional ideal; it is the foundation upon which public trust, economic progress and democratic stability ultimately rest.
