The practice of hurling allegations and counter allegations has become a hallmark of Pakistani politics. Top leadership of mainstream political parties never gets tired of accusing its opponents of corruption with or without documentary proof. It is a part of this political maneuvering that every politician tries to portray himself as the true saviour of the nation and his/her opponent as the worst enemy of the country. But during the last 70 years, Pakistan has failed to have a proper check and balance system while verbal fights among political rivals are still going on. Lately, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan made a ‘revelation’ about the alleged corruption of Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shehbaz Sharif, which the latter tried to counter with a defamation suit against the accuser. At a news conference at his Bani Gala residence, Khan disclosed that a Canadian national by the name of Javed Sadiq had been allegedly acting as the front man of the provincial chief executive, and that he had already received kickbacks worth Rs 26 billion in mega projects. Reacting to allegations of corruption, the Punjab chief minister has said that he would file a Rs 26 billion defamation lawsuit against PTI chief Imran Khan. This shows that political immaturity is rampant in the country while the choice for the masses is limited. Despite facing charges of corruption in their previous tenures, the PML-N and Pakistan People’s Party remain the only choice for the masses while the PTI is still in the evolution phase. Despite making tall claims, the PTI has failed to achieve any significant success in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where corruption scams as well as cases of bad governance are still surfacing. Overall, there is a trail of corruption cases that continue to appear during successive regimes, yet no ruler has picked up courage to formulate an effective strategy for the elimination of this curse as the process of accountability could not take roots in the country due to involvement of bigwigs in mega scams. The institutions set up to deal with this malaise have so far failed to yield desired results. They allegedly work under the whims of incumbent rulers instead of following the merit of a case. Any drive against corruption was either launched for political victimisation or to settle scores with opponents. It is a fact that institutions tasked with accountability have been accused of following a ‘pick-and-choose’ policy. Reports clearly suggest that cases were not pursued or a deeper probe was dropped at the behest of high-ups. Unless and until some notable big names from all segments who are proved guilty of corruption are put behind bars, no one will be convinced of the partisan role of institutions. Another aspect of accountability in Pakistan is the absence of across-the-board action. There are certain powerful institutions whose personnel remain unscathed. The concept that only civilians commit corruption while those holding office in the military establishment and the judiciary are angels is neither reasonable nor should it accepted without question. An accountability drive should also be launched against those corrupt persons who belong to the so-called ‘powerful’ institutions. Real accountability can be achieved through an impartial action against all those who are found involved in corrupt practices without any discrimination. Government needs to devise a mechanism to respond to all allegations of corruption in the framework of transparency and law. *