ISLAMABAD – Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has made an unusual reshuffle at the top of its hierarchy, appointing the outgoing Deputy Chairman as Prosecutor General Accountability and moving the former Prosecutor General into the Deputy Chairman’s position. Rather than bringing in new candidates for the two senior posts, the government has appointed the same two officials to each other’s positions, prompting criticism of the bureau’s appointment practices and its commitment to merit. According to Notification No. F.1(2)/2021-A.I, issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on September 18, 2026, the federal government, on the recommendation of the NAB chairman, appointed Sohail Nasir as Prosecutor General Accountability for a three-year term effective October 11, 2026. Under a separate notification, No. F.1(10)/2026-A.I, issued on the same date, the federal government appointed Syed Ihtesham Qadir Shah as Deputy Chairman NAB for a non-extendable three-year term, effective October 11, 2026, in consultation with the NAB chairman. As a result, Sohail Nasir, who previously held the position of Deputy Chairman, will now serve as Prosecutor General Accountability, while Syed Ihtesham Qadir Shah, the former Prosecutor General, will take over as Deputy Chairman. The two appointments amount to an exchange of positions between the same officials, with no new names announced for either post in the notifications provided.
The most striking aspect of the reshuffle is the decision to move the two officials into each other’s positions instead of appointing fresh candidates, if their previous tenures had indeed come to an end. Were no other eligible candidates available for these senior positions, or did the government and NAB leadership consider retaining the same officials in different roles to be the most suitable option? If so, what administrative considerations justified the decision? NAB, as a key accountability institution, is expected to demonstrate transparency, merit and sound administrative judgment in its own affairs.
The exchange of its two senior positions has therefore created an impression that, instead of introducing fresh leadership through new appointments, the authorities have simply placed the existing officials in different chairs.
The role of Prosecutor General Accountability is central to the legal prosecution of NAB cases, while the Deputy Chairman occupies an important position within the bureau’s administrative and leadership structure. Given the distinct responsibilities attached to these offices, the authorities should explain how the officials’ qualifications, experience and suitability for their respective positions were assessed. If fresh appointments were required following the completion of the previous tenures, the government could have considered other eligible candidates. Instead, the decision to appoint each official to the other’s former position has triggered criticism over the necessity and institutional value of the reshuffle. The matter is particularly significant because NAB expects public officials to demonstrate transparency and accountability. Its own senior appointments should therefore be supported by a clear and credible administrative rationale.
The two notifications alone, however, do not establish that any appointment rules or legal provisions have been violated. Such a conclusion would require an examination of the applicable law, the terms of the officials’ previous appointments and the procedures followed by the federal government. The government and NAB leadership should clarify why the two officials were appointed to each other’s positions, whether other eligible candidates were considered, and what professional and administrative factors informed the decisions. The credibility of an accountability institution depends not only on the cases it pursues and the action it takes against corruption, but also on the transparency of its own administrative decisions. Unless a clear justification is provided for this unusual exchange of senior positions, the reshuffle is likely to intensify criticism of NAB’s administrative priorities and its commitment to merit.