It is shocking for existing taxpayers that Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) keeps on squeezing them, but does not take any action against non-filers and those who do file returns but are involved in evading taxes. The voters are also bewildered as to why the Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB), even after repeatedly being reprimanded by Supreme Court is protecting the plunderers of national wealth by not freezing their properties, created out of unexplained sources. The same is the case with Governor State Bank (SBP) and Director General Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) who are reluctant to take action against offenders of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. It is now for the media and civil society to act as a watchdog and exert pressure on the institutions to fulfil their obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the ConstitutionTaxpayers’ money was used for his unsuccessful defence in the Supreme Court, and now the state resources are being abused to launch a vicious campaign against judiciary and the armed forces.The common man wants to know as to why the heads of SBP, FIA, FBR and NAB have yet not started investigation against all those who stashed money abroad and their names have appeared in Panama and Bahamas Leaks, or in the list of investors in real estate in London, UAE and elsewhere. For inward remittances through normal banking channels or keeping foreign currency accounts in Pakistan, immunity from probe is available under section 5 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 and section 111(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. For outward remittances, law is clear that the purpose should be disclosed and payment should be from the local foreign currency account [Section 3 of Foreign Currency Accounts (Protection) Ordinance, 2001.]. The first test case is that of former President Asif Ali Zardari, who allegedly got his $60 million moved from Swiss banks and never told the nation where the said money came from, and how much tax was paid on it in Pakistan or elsewhere. Now even the Accountability Court on technical grounds absolved him from all charges in the SGS-Cotecna case.The second case is that of Nawaz Sharif who declared in his assets filed with Election Commission and FBR an account in Saudi Arabia having closing balance of Saudi Riyal 889,416 = US$ 237,165. Did he transfer money from any foreign currency account opened in Pakistan? The reply is no, as per his own admission. He should have been asked about the sources of foreign currency kept abroad by Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and NAB. Third case is that of special adviser on revenue to Nawaz Sharif. According to a report, he “with some members of his family, is facing National Accountability Bureau’s inquiry for receiving ‘remittances’ to the tune of Rs 700 million. The probe lingers on, as he is reluctant to disclose the source of this hefty remittance, taking refuge behind the Economic Reform Act, 1992. Non-disclosure of the source of remittance by a public office is not covered in the immunity available under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, which was also withdrawn with effect from December 16, 1999 vide Protection of Economic Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999. Even otherwise, the said immunity prior to that was for tax laws and not from provisions related to money laundering or disqualification of a public office holder on account of corruption and/or any other malpractice. All the above cases are covered in section 5(c) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 which says: “Assets means any property owned, controlled by or belonging to any accused, whether directly or indirectly, or held benami in the name of his spouse or relatives or associates, whether within or outside Pakistan, for which they cannot reasonably account, or for which they cannot prove payment of full and lawful consideration”.Fourth case is that of two rich officeholders of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Aleem Khan and Jahangir Tareen. According to reports, they have admitted ownership of offshore companies, accounts in other countries and properties in London and elsewhere. Their offshore accounts also need to be probed vis-a-vis application of Foreign Currency Accounts (Protection) Ordinance, 2001. In these cases as well, SBP, FIA, FBR and NAB have failed to start investigations. According to a report, Aleem Khan ‘understated assets owned by his offshore company named in the Panama Papers by declaring property worth Rs 430 million as only Rs 2.9 million’. These are test cases for SBP, FIA, FBR and NAB but as usual there is total inaction.Another test case is admission in the concise statements filed in the Supreme Court by Hussain Nawaz that Maryam Safdar was beneficial owner of the offshore companies (and by virtue of that, owner of Mayfair flats in London) from February 2006 to July 2006. She did not declare this in her tax declarations for Tax Year 2006. Will this concealment go unnoticed and unpunished?The above cases pose a real challenge to institutions that are presently politicised and/or muzzled by money power. It is now for the media and civil society to act as watchdog and exert pressure on the institutions to fulfil obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution. The writer is Advocate Supreme Court and Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; Twitter: @drikramulhaq Published in Daily Times, September 10th 2017.