THE ruling coalition has previously faced criticism for legislating in ways that appear to prioritise the interests of lawmakers over those of the public. Against this backdrop, the passage of new legislation which will restrict public access to parliamentarians’ asset declarations warrants scrutiny. This week, the National Assembly passed a law allowing lawmakers to keep their assets confidential if they can demonstrate that disclosure “would pose a serious threat to the life or safety” of themselves or their family. While they still need to submit a “complete and true statement of assets and liabilities” to the Election Commission of Pakistan, the law raises serious concerns about whether confidential disclosure alone can meaningfully serve the purpose of public accountability. Furthermore, there seems to be no clear mechanism for independent, credible auditing of the confidential declarations made, and it seems exemption requests will be the prerogative of the leaders of different legislatures. Safeguards against potential abuse have not been discussed and, given our challenge of selective accountability and weak institutional enforcement, this should not be ignored. Asset declarations are not a procedural formality; they are meant to be a check on conflicts of interest.

It is concerning that the law aims to restrict public oversight in an area where transparency is essential. Elected representatives are empowered by the public and exert immense influence over public resources. In democratic systems, this delegation of power entails an increased obligation to be transparent, especially with respect to one’s own finances. Here, the government has defended the law as an attempt to strike “a balance between transparency and protection of individual rights”, arguing that the publication of asset declarations could compromise the security and privacy of legislators and their families. While concerns about personal safety in a volatile political setting should not be dismissed outright, demanding secrecy in financial matters is neither necessary nor proportionate. Across the democratic world, public officials accept reduced financial privacy as a condition of holding office. It is not a punitive measure but a credibility-enhancing one that protects both public trust and the integrity of officeholders. The decision to expand secrecy, rather than refine transparency, places Pakistan at odds with these norms. Confidential disclosures to the ECP, whose own independence has been questioned in recent years, cannot be a substitute for public scrutiny.

Published in Dawn, January 24th, 2026