Why Secrecy Around Lawmakers’ Wealth Threatens Pakistan’s Democracy |
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has objected to recently approved legal amendments that have limited public disclosure of the assets of parliamentarians, raising prospects for the reversal of the move that is also in breach of the Fund's good governance and anti-corruption framework…..The National Assembly (NA) passed these amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, to limit public disclosure of legislators’ assets and liabilities in January this year, only after the PML-N legislators voted in its favour—IMF wants reversal of secrecy clause in MPs’ assets law, The Express Tribune, March 11, 2026.
In any true democracy, there exists an implicit social contract that citizens pay taxes and obey laws, while those who wield public authority remain transparent and accountable. Article 19A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [“the Constitution”] guarantees every citizen an inalienable fundamental right “to have access to information in all matters of public importance subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions imposed by law”.
In utter violation of the Constitution, efforts have been underway to deny free access to the asset declarations of parliamentarians through subordinate legislation. The so-called vibrant media and civil society have been just pointing it out, but not launching an effective campaign as defenders of free access to information that ultimately facilitates the right of free speech. Now, strangely, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), hated for its anti-people policies, has taken strong exception, as the political class has been quietly moving to legislate new layers of secrecy around its own wealth.
Under section 138 of the Elections Act of 2017, statements of assets and liabilities submitted by members of parliament are meant to be publicly accessible documents. The philosophy behind this provision is straightforward and consistent with democratic practice across the world: those who exercise state authority on behalf of the people must disclose their financial interests so that conflicts of interest, unexplained wealth and potential abuse of power can be scrutinised.
However, an amendment in Rule 138 of the Election Rules, 2017 by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through SRO. 692(1)/2023 of 15.06.2023 now requires citizens seeking access to these declarations to reveal their identity, state their purpose through a prescribed form and submit an affidavit promising that the information will not be misused. What appears as a bureaucratic formality has effectively erected a barrier between citizens and information that should be available as a matter of right—a blatant violation of Article 19A of the Constitution.
The controversy gained further significance when the IMF objected to the secrecy clause recently approved by the National Assembly, presented through a private Bill, and urged its reversal. Under Pakistan’s ongoing IMF financial arrangement, the government has committed to strengthening governance and transparency frameworks. One of the reforms involves disclosure of assets by federal civil servants. The irony is striking: bureaucrats may now face stricter disclosure requirements while legislators—the very architects of the legal order—appear to be insulating themselves from public scrutiny.
This contradiction is not accidental. It reflects a deeper structural feature of Pakistan’s constitutional political economy, where transparency is often demanded from citizens and lower tiers of the state, but resisted by those occupying the highest political offices.
The issue is not merely administrative, but relates to a fundamental right, which was introduced through the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, precisely to counter the culture of secrecy that has historically characterised governance in Pakistan. Access to information empowers citizens to supervise the conduct of public officials and to ensure that state authority is exercised in the public interest.
The Supreme Court has already clarified that this right cannot be diluted through ordinary legislation or bureaucratic procedures. In Watan Party v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 292), the Court emphasised that access to information is a fundamental right and warned against elitist interpretations that keep information confined to those exercising state power while denying it to citizens.
Legislators enjoy a wide range of benefits funded by taxpayers—official residences, transport facilities, generous allowances and other perquisites that run into millions of rupees annually
Legislators enjoy a wide range of benefits funded by taxpayers—official residences, transport facilities, generous allowances and other perquisites that run into millions of rupees annually
Statements of assets and liabilities of legislators clearly fall within the category of matters of public importance. Members of parliament influence legislation, shape fiscal policy and supervise the allocation of public resources. Their financial integrity, therefore, directly affects public trust in governance.
The problem, however, is not limited to restricted access to information. For decades, the system of asset declarations has functioned largely as a ritual rather than a meaningful accountability mechanism. Legislators submit their statements annually, and the ECP in the past used to publish them in the official gazette, but verification and scrutiny remain extremely limited.
This has produced a curious spectacle. Many legislators report modest incomes in their declarations while maintaining lifestyles that suggest far greater wealth. Expansive residences, fleets of vehicles and frequent foreign travel often coexist with declarations showing minimal taxable income.
In numerous cases, the declared value of assets appears significantly understated, while some legislators simply repeat earlier declarations without meaningful updates.
Even the procedural requirement to submit asset declarations has frequently been ignored. On several occasions, hundreds of legislators have failed to file their statements by the legal deadline, forcing the ECP to suspend their memberships temporarily.
Yet such suspensions are usually short-lived. Once the declarations are submitted belatedly, membership is restored and the matter fades from public attention.
The deeper question is why scrutiny remains so weak. Effective verification of legislators’ financial declarations would require coordination among several institutions—ECP, Federal Board of Revenue, State Bank of Pakistan, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and investigative agencies such as the National Accountability Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency. In practice, these institutions often operate within a political environment where pursuing inquiries against powerful figures becomes institutionally difficult.
Another factor is the entrenched alliance between political elites and bureaucratic power structures. Amnesty schemes, confidentiality provisions and weak enforcement mechanisms have repeatedly allowed influential individuals to regularise undeclared assets while avoiding serious investigation. These measures weaken accountability institutions and reinforce the perception that laws are applied selectively.
Against this background, restricting public access to asset declarations appears less like an administrative adjustment and more like a continuation of a broader pattern. Transparency regarding wealth is not a trivial matter in societies where political power frequently intersects with economic privilege.
Legislators enjoy a wide range of benefits funded by taxpayers—official residences, transport facilities, generous allowances and other perquisites that run into millions of rupees annually. Many of these benefits are not fully reflected in tax declarations, even though existing tax laws clearly require the fair market value of such benefits to be treated as taxable income.
This situation produces a paradoxical fiscal order. Millions of citizens with modest incomes contribute taxes through indirect levies embedded in electricity bills, fuel prices and mobile phone charges. Meanwhile, sections of the ruling elite continue to enjoy privileges while declaring relatively modest incomes.
Such disparities inevitably weaken the legitimacy of the tax system. Citizens who observe a disconnect between taxation and accountability begin to question the fairness of the entire fiscal structure. Pakistan’s chronic fiscal crisis cannot be separated from this erosion of trust. A tax system functions effectively only when citizens believe that those who legislate tax laws are themselves compliant and transparent.
A state that taxes its citizens while allowing those who make tax laws to conceal their own financial affairs inevitably undermines the legitimacy of its fiscal system
A state that taxes its citizens while allowing those who make tax laws to conceal their own financial affairs inevitably undermines the legitimacy of its fiscal system
When legislators conceal their wealth while imposing heavier taxation on the public, the moral foundation of taxation collapses. In such an environment, enforcement alone cannot expand the tax base; the credibility of the state becomes the decisive factor.
Transparency in asset declarations, therefore, serves a broader democratic purpose. It ensures that public office is not used as a vehicle for private enrichment and that political authority remains accountable to voters.
Experience from other democracies demonstrates that disclosure of financial interests by legislators is a standard feature of modern governance. In many countries, asset declarations of public officials are published online and subject to scrutiny by journalists, researchers and civil society organisations. The underlying philosophy is simple: democracy functions best when information flows freely between state institutions and citizens.
Pakistan’s constitutional framework with respect to transparency and the right of access to public information is even better than that of many developed countries on paper, but its practical implementation remains highly unsatisfactory. The present controversy illustrates how fragile the culture of transparency still is. Procedural restrictions may appear minor, but they carry symbolic significance. When the political class begins to legislate opacity for itself, public confidence in democratic institutions inevitably erodes.
The solution lies not merely in reversing the recent restrictions but in strengthening the entire framework of financial accountability. Asset declarations must be subject to rigorous verification, discrepancies investigated promptly, and false statements punished decisively. More importantly, access to such information must remain simple and unrestricted.
A broader reform would involve establishing an independent mechanism to scrutinise financial declarations of all state functionaries—legislators, judges, senior civil servants and military officials. Accountability loses credibility when it is selective. A transparent system that applies uniformly across institutions would help restore public confidence in governance.
The debate over secrecy in legislators’ asset declarations is therefore not merely about access to documents. It is a test of whether Pakistan’s democratic institutions are willing to respect the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.
A state that taxes its citizens while allowing those who make tax laws to conceal their own financial affairs inevitably undermines the legitimacy of its fiscal system. Pakistan already suffers from a profound trust deficit between citizens and the state. Ordinary taxpayers see a system where indirect taxes fall heavily on the poor while sections of the ruling elite continue to enjoy privileges, exemptions and secrecy surrounding their wealth.
Restricting access to asset declarations only reinforces the perception that laws are designed less to regulate power than to protect it. The constitutional promise embodied in Article 19A was meant to dismantle precisely this culture of opacity. Democracy cannot function when information about public affairs remains monopolised by those who exercise authority.
If Pakistan is serious about restoring public trust in democratic institutions, the path is clear. Access to asset declarations of legislators must remain open and unconditional, and these declarations must be subject to meaningful scrutiny.
Transparency should not stop at the doors of parliament. In a constitutional democracy, those who make the laws must be the first to submit themselves to the discipline of openness.