ISLAMABAD: Over a decade after the National Accountability Bureau presented a list of 179 “mega corruption cases” before the Supreme Court, the fate of these cases raises a troubling question: was NAB making genuine mega corruption cases or did the bureau itself overstate the magnitude and evidentiary strength of a large number of cases?
The question assumes greater significance because the last official status of the 179 cases, updated by NAB, shows that 90 of the 179 cases had been disposed of, while 86 references were still under trial and three investigations remained under process.
NAB was approached for latest data but it could not be shared with The News. Sources, however, said that even the latest update would not absolve the Bureau of blowing these cases out of proportion. All these cases were framed as “mega corruption” by the then NAB management, which remains unaccountable.
The list of “mega corruption” cases was originally submitted to the Supreme Court in 2015 on the court’s directions. At that time, NAB categorised the 179 cases into 81 inquiries, 52 investigations and 46 references under trial. NAB subsequently declared that the cases had been given the highest priority and would be finalised expeditiously without compromising transparency and merit.
Almost over ten years later, however, the public record does not demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of these cases culminated in convictions establishing the alleged mega corruption.
Indeed, a report published by The News on June 22, 2024, based on NAB’s position as of April 30, 2024, stated that there had been only 10 convictions out of the 179 cases, while around 19 cases had ended in acquittals. At that point, 87 references were under trial and 85 cases had been disposed of. Sources said that a case being under trial cannot be described as either proved or disproved. But when a list is publicly presented as comprising “mega corruption cases”, the ultimate judicial outcome becomes the most important test of whether the original allegations were supported by evidence.
The record also shows that a substantial number of cases did not survive until trial. NAB’s own last statistics, as available on its 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 referred elsewhere. Of the total 97 investigations including those converted from inquiries, 73 references were filed, four resulted in plea bargains and 17 were closed.
The political cases contained in the list provide some striking examples. Some big political names were included in these cases but hardly any of them have been convicted. Most of them have either been acquitted or their cases closed.
It raises the question how did allegations that were serious enough to be placed before the Supreme Court as part of a list of “mega corruption cases” subsequently end up being closed or ending in acquittals?
The question becomes even more relevant when the financial figures attached to some cases are examined.
“If allegations described as ‘mega corruption’ cannot be translated into convictions after nearly ten years, while a significant number of cases are closed or end in acquittals, then the credibility of the original classification deserves scrutiny,” said a source, adding that the real unanswered question is therefore not simply why the 179 cases took so long.
It is whether NAB, in 2015, presented 179 genuinely established mega corruption cases to the Supreme Court or presented a mixture of allegations, inquiries, investigations and references as if they were already established mega scandals.
A case is not corruption merely because NAB puts it on a list. Ultimately, corruption has to be established through evidence and, where contested, through a judicial finding, sources said.
One of these sources said that nearly ten years on, the 179-case record provides ample reason for Parliament, the judiciary and NAB itself to examine how these cases were selected, what evidence existed when they were declared “mega”, how much money was actually recovered from them, and why so many failed to culminate in convictions.
