Whistleblowing and accountability

The ultimate dream of any law-abiding citizen is to live their life with fairness, dignity, and integrity. These are reasonable and basic expectations in any civilised society, and when the system fails to deliver them, the capacity to hope and dream is compromised.

Transparency and accountability are fundamental to any civilised and functioning society. These are certainly not slogans pitched in political speeches but solid, concrete pillars that nourish trust between the state and its citizens.

The absence of these fundamentals will not only spread corruption but also facilitate the culture that rewards silence and punishes truth-telling. In Pakistan, we have too many laws yet too few examples. We certainly do not lack anti-corruption laws; we lack the courage to enforce them. Therefore, to uphold transparency and accountability, a culture of whistleblowing is essential. Whistleblowers are the actual guardians of the public trust.

These are the individuals who expose wrongdoing from within institutions. Their protection is essential for any government that intends to survive and prosper in the twenty-first century.

Globally, whistleblower protection laws have proven vital to enforcing governance reforms and institutional resilience. The Whistleblower Protection Act and the False Claims Act in the US have enabled private citizens and government employees to expose wrongdoing and fraud, with visible economic and social returns.

In 2022, cases involving healthcare and defence fraud brought under the False Claims Act resulted in more than $2.2 billion in recoveries for the US government. Similarly, in the UK, with a reasonable expectation of protection, workers can report wrongdoing without fear. In many countries, however, whistleblowing remains a taboo, career-ending act.

The rationale for whistleblowing is simple: in modern corporate structures, whether it is financial misrepresentation or abuse of power within hierarchical bureaucracies, only insiders can see and speak out. Speaking about these wrongdoings at the earliest stage can help mitigate systemic risk, but the potential whistleblower fears retaliation.

If these individuals are afforded legal, financial, and social protection, misconduct can be identified before it becomes a scandal or national embarrassment.

Mostly, these individuals are victimised, as was the case with US air marshal John McLean. After the September 2001 attacks in New York World Trade Centre, Congress passed a law that required airlines to have a steel-reinforced cockpit door.

McLean was persecuted for exposing the airlines that failed to implement the mandated steel-reinforced cockpit doors. In this case, the damage went far beyond McLean’s career; it compromised the very notion that the rule of law can withstand the pressure of interest and power.

McLean was fired, denied promotion, and transferred far away from his hometown until the courts intervened and upheld his rights. Damage was done; McLean was divorced, unemployed, and totally devastated.

Above all, the episode exposed the system: that accountability mechanisms are only as strong as the legal frameworks that enforce them, and second, that without reasonable, enforceable protections, institutions will almost always prefer to shoot the messenger rather than confront the message.

According to the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Pakistan ranks 135th out of 180 countries, with a score of 27 out of 100. We are being placed amongst the world’s most corruption-vulnerable states. Pakistan presents quite an interesting comparative scenario, as whistleblower protections are inconsistent, weak, and merely symbolic.

This is primarily a governance diagnosis; it is certainly not a reputational issue. It represents long-standing failures in political accountability, contractual enforcement, and regulatory independence.

Then comes the economic cost, as the recent IMF Governance and Corruption Diagnostics report estimates that over Rs5.3 trillion in assets were recovered over the last two years (2023-2024). Corruption poses systemic risks to the country and its economic sustainability.

It is not merely a waste of funds but a reallocation of national resources that moves them far from productivity and prosperity. It also weakens investor confidence, distorts markets, institutionalises inequality and, above all, compromises the prospects of foreign direct investment.

In Pakistan, we are confronting real issues, and there are countless scenarios, for example, the recent (2025) SECP salary scandal, where officials at the helm of affairs in the SECP allegedly approved over Rs. 700 million in excessive salaries and perks during the final months of their tenure.

This exposed a fundamental governance flaw as public servants themselves determining their compensation without independent oversight.

The same with the sugar scandal; it has been observed that cartelisation and billions in unlawful gains demonstrated how an entire sector can be shielded from accountability when there is a nexus between regulators and political elites. The most disturbing aspect was not the abuse itself, but the absence of consequential ramifications.

Pakistan has a structurally inadequate whistleblower protection framework. While the Whistleblower Protection and Vigilance Commission Act 2019 exists, it lacks enforcement and operational power. Without guaranteed anonymity, a proper enforcement mechanism, and protection from retaliation, there can be no progress.

This can be addressed by aligning the current legal framework for whistleblowers with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

In countries like Pakistan, the cultural consequences are even more severe. Surveys conducted by Transparency International Pakistan show that 70 per cent of citizens are unaware of any reporting channels, only 43 per cent of those aware ever report corruption, and 42 per cent explicitly say they would report if real protection existed. The majority of civil servants remain silent not because they are corrupt or have no courage, but because they are rational.

This is a choice between professional risk and survival. This cannot be classified as a moral failure of individuals but rather a structural failure of incentives.

Global experience of comparative analysis offers clear examples and lessons. South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act, Canada’s Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau all institutionalise three principles: anonymity, independence, and inevitable retaliation safeguards.

These systems reveal an uncomfortable truth: organisations do not self-correct unless they are forced to. Accountability is not a cultural trait; it is an engineered outcome.

There are legitimate concerns about misuse, false reporting, or bureaucratic overload regarding whistleblowers’ practices, but these are manageable. Institutions can adopt best-practice methods, such as establishing evidentiary thresholds, penalising vexatious complaints, and maintaining third-party, independent review panels.

Many countries that have implemented these mechanisms have experienced positive outcomes, including improved intelligence quality, reduced long-term corruption costs, and strengthened institutional legitimacy.

Recently, a controversial investigation by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) into a YouTuber underscores the importance of whistleblowing mechanisms. The scandal surfaced and was reported by the premier intelligence agency while they were engaged in a different assignment.

This highlights that even national security states cannot function without internal truth. Without an independent, autonomous Whistleblower Authority, the deterrence against accountability and corruption will have little policy implications.

Here, we need to strengthen parliament’s role: the Whistleblower Authority must have constitutional protection and report directly to parliament. It must have financial independence, similar to that enjoyed by the judiciary, digital anonymous reporting platforms, and automatic suspension mechanisms in retaliation cases. Prosecution referral powers and mandatory compliance oversight must also be integral to this authority.

There must also be social and educational rearrangements beyond legislation. It takes a lot of courage to be a whistleblower; these individuals must be publicly honoured and must be given institutional guarantees of career continuity, legal aid, financial security, and psychological support.

We also need to promote and cultivate a culture within the civil service that rewards ethical conduct rather than submissive silence. Our judiciary must treat revenge against whistleblowers as a constitutional violation rather than as an administrative dispute.

Whistleblowers are not Western imports; they are moral custodians deeply rooted in both our religious and social fabrics. Our religion too reinforces this ethical mandate as the principle of Amr bil Ma’roof wa Nahi anil Munkar is not just a ritual but a systemic principle. Under this principle, societies are obligated to intrinsically enable truth, not just praise it in Friday sermons.

Pakistan is at a crossroads, where decades of ineffective accountability have weakened institutions, eroded public trust, and driven both talent and capital flight. Pakistani professionals are not leaving because they have cast off Pakistan, but are leaving because Pakistan has rejected merit. Whistleblower protection is not an answer to the problems we are facing as a nation, but it is the substance upon which all serious reform rests.

Nations that commit to institutionalising accountability attract investment, talent, and command legitimacy. Those who reject these notions and continue to live in a state of denial may survive temporarily, but ultimately cannot endure and will face the consequences. If we protect our whistleblowers, then we will protect our future, but if we punish them, then surely, we will disqualify ourselves from modernity.

The writer is a political economist, public policy commentator, and advocate for principled leadership and regional cooperation across the Muslim world.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.

Originally published in The News