9 ` N a country where tax evasion is rife and increasing the tax-to-GDP ratio a perennial topic of discussion, one would imagine the FBR would be grateful to whistleblowers exposing dodgy accounting practices at corporate concerns. Quite the opposite seems to be the case. On Wednesday, President Arif Alvi castigated the FBR for revealing to a private company the identity of a whistleblowing employee who had reported the firm`s alleged financial irregularities. The complainant, an accountant at Northern Toolings, had told FBR that the company was involved in maintaining bank accounts in the names of its employees, concealing warehouses with undeclared stock, under-invoicing at import stage, etc, all of which resulted in massive losses to the national exchequer. This was an act of courage, undertaken at considerable personal risk. But, instead of protecting the whistleblower`s identity and taking thorough action on his complaint, FBR rendered him more vulnerable. Reportedly, after his name was leaked, the individual began receiving threats from the company. The entire episode reflects very poorly on the FBR, and is indicative of a systemic malaise. In fact, even the Federal Excise Act 2005, one of the laws under which it functions, recognises the importance of whistleblowers and makes provision for the FBR to reward them. In its press releases, the FBR itself has encouraged people to come forward and expose tax evasion, while pledging to keep their identity confidential.

Corruption becomes endemic in a society when regulatory and investigative institutions fail to perform their duties. Corporate entities use `creative` accounting methods to help hide their tax liabilities, and powerful individuals amass ill-gotten gains without any questions being asked. In such an environment, whistleblowers act at their peril. Recent instances have seen authorities, including at the highest levels of government, ordering punitive action against those who have revealed information suggesting extremely questionable acquisition of assets by influential individuals and `politically exposed persons`. This is not to advocate for exposés of confidential information of private individuals, especially by officials handling protected data, or information that concerns national security. Public interest should be the touchstone to consider whether an act of whistleblowing is justified. Think Panama Papers. Meanwhile, we need more legislation to protect whistleblowers, and the laws that exist should be strengthened and implemented. Those who seek to expose wrongdoing for the right reasons should not have to suffer.