NAB`S appointment of a new adviser to the chairman is a reminder that the agency is often in the news for developments that have little to do with its mandate. Viewed as a body on its way out pending the creation of a new watchdog under a new accountability law, and at the same time considered vulnerable to government influence, the so-called National Accountability Bureau appears to have become largely toothless. Its now-overturned appointment by the attorney general to take the lead in the Arsalan Iftikhar-Malik Riaz case, for example a matter arguably beyond its jurisdiction has reinforced the impression that the administration views it as a tool to be used strategically. Restrained from pursuing high-profile cases against those close to the ruling party or against important opposition figures witness the obstacles it has faced in pursuing corruption cases against the Sharifs it has only been able to tackle smaller cases even after the long-awaited appointment of the current chief in October, when the body had been without a chairman for several months.

NAB is also dogged by rumours of nepotism, withthe chairman having been charged by the body`s own officers although the petition was later withdrawn of appointing his favourites in key positions in violation of procedure.

From frequent personnel changes to allegations of bias and questions about its relevance, NAB needs an overhaul if it is to be taken seriously as an anticorruption organisation.

But will the new accountability law being circulated between the ruling party and the opposition do much to change this? Leaks to the media suggest the draft bill goes some way towards creating a more autonomous body; its head would be appointed by a parliamentary commission consisting of both treasury and opposition members. But apparently there are still loopholes such as a bar on investigating foreign assets, a time limit on pursuing cases, no jurisdiction over cases already in process when the law is enacted and protection for acts committed `in good faith`. NAB has already gone from a body seen as aggressively pursuing politically motivated cases to one that isn`t doing much about high-level corruption. Will its replacement be even more ineffectual?