The recently issued NAB (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2019 amending the NAB Law of 1999 is an indicator of the reversal of the policy of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)fromjustice and curbingcorruption to injustice and giving an open and blank legislative cheque for corruption to civil servants (bureaucrats) and other public office-holders (politicians). All of a sudden, a paradigm shift in the government policy on a burning national issue of accountability is not understandable. BRT and Malum Jabba scams are under the scrutiny of the FIA and NAB; few bureaucrats are under the imminent radar of NAB for alleged wrongdoings; and certain politicians are also being looked into by NAB and other agencies for their alleged involvement in various corruption scandals. All of them happen to be very near and dear to the PTI. Besides that, the government needs the support of the PML-N, PPP and other political parties in parliament for bringing in an amendment in and in relation to Article 243 of the Constitution of Pakistan in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the apex court. The thin majority of the PTI in parliament seems to be a major stumbling block in this regard. An NRO is not possible as the judiciary had adversely commented thereon much earlier. An ‘NRO-plus’ is seemingly in the offing as a desire of the PTI to pave the way for its success to accommodate its ‘facilitators’ to power. How to get relief for making room for a person-specific legislative-cum-constitutional amendment is the dilemmabeing facedby thePTI. PTI’s friends, allies and facilitators have developed a sophisticated softwareto deal with the unbridgeable situation in the form of a presidential ordinance. On the one hand, it would help save PTI’s friends from the yoke of accountability, and on the other, it wouldalso help get sympathies of the PPP and PML-N for voting in parliament to bring in the required change in the Article 243 of the constitution. Though the PPP and PML-N are ostensibly opposing the amendment in the NAB law through this ordinance, they are just duping the public.The newordinance has been purportedly designed with their secret connivance as the top leadership of the PPP and PML-N would also be the direct or indirect beneficiaries in the near future or in the long run. The ordinance is designed to kill three birds with one stone: i) to please the friends and allies of the PTIallegedly involved in corruption; ii) to accommodate the opponents-PPPand PML-N-allegedly involved in corruption; and iii) to weaken the grip of NAB against the corrupt elements of society. It is also a pointer to PTI’s recent move of an anti-judiciary narrative.That was because of the judgment of the apex court in relation to Article 243 of the constitution;the decision of court in General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf’s treason case;the verdictsof the high court annulling more than 60 convictions of military courts (although the government cited such decisions as the proof of the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan before the International Court of Justice in the matter of KulbhushanJadhav);the decision of higher courts commenting adversely on the Action in Aid of Civil Power Law 2011; and certain other matters where the judiciary has upheld the ‘rule of law’ by proclaiming thesupremacy of the constitution. These judicial pronouncements, it appears, are indigestible for the federal government. Not only that, those who brought PTI into power through ‘selection and not election’ are unhappy too.The government is being run by them. Rawalpindi is more pro-active and effective than Islamabad in decision-making and governance issues. The other object, and that too the immediate one,of making this ordinance is to get support of the PPP, PML -N and other parties for bringing a legislation in relation to Article 243 of the constitution for resolving a crisis. Such a concessionary legislation will have a far-reaching effect on weakening one of the most important organisations of Pakistan The ordinance is not issued in vacuum. It is not a storm in a teacup. It is the result of extensive deliberations, thoughtful understandings and high-level political engineering to achieve the four important objectives hinted to earlier. It is not what it seems to be. It is rather what it does not appear to be. Time will unfold many other secrets and hidden hands behind this overnight change in the legal framework on accountability. Let us wait; time will lift the curtain from what has indeed happened. What was the necessity of promulgating such an ordinance overnight? Nobody from the party in power is ready to give any plausible explanation. The Senate has not been in session for more than three and a half months. Why? No one from the party in power is ready to answer this query. Some politicians including members of Senate have, it is learnt, prepared amendatory scheme in the NAB law. Why they have not been consulted? All political parties must have been consulted to obtain their feedback. They could have come up with proper and necessary changes in the NAB law to make the system of accountability more effective, transparent and powerful so that no corrupt element, irrespective of its power, should not go scot free. The PTI could have done it in a democratic manner. Had it been serious for law reforms, it ought to have done it after consultation with all political parties, and that too through parliamentary legislation. An overnight change in a very important law of the land points out the mala fide intentions of the government. Democratic governments are not run in the way the PTI has begun to run the government. People voted for the PTI for change as its manifesto claimed “justice for all, across-the-board accountability and corruption-free Pakistan for creating a powerful economy”. The ordinance seems to have upset the very edifice of PTI’s political and economic narrative. Such a concessionary legislation will have a far-reaching effect on weakening one of the most important organisations of Pakistan. Is it not in violation of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan? Will it not disappoint the supporters of the PTI who voted for it in 2018 on the sole slogan of change?That is another question that the leadership of the PTI must respond with a plausible explanation; otherwise,the people of Pakistan will never trust a promise made by any political leader.They will lose trust in the truthfulness of political leadership. The ordinance will be giving a negative signal to the international community as well, as it may bring bad name to the country. It might adversely affect the confidence of foreign investors. It may occasion bad governance. It will have a direct bad impact on the narrative of meritocracy. A look at the performance of this regime since August 2018 shows its priorities: no seriousness in parliamentary legislation; blame-game against opponents in print and electronic media; continuation of’container’ politics; inaccessibility of PTI leadership to workers and public;and unfriendly steps like inflation in prices of commodities of daily use, hike in gas and electricity prices, petrol and diesel. When DG ISPR, information minister, law minister and adviser on NAB held press conferences on December 17, 2019 on the judgment of court in Pervez Musharraf’s case, the prime minister was out of country. The civil society expected that on his return he would proceed against them for their ‘contemptuous’media talks, but he did not initiate any action. He rather joined the chorus. Everybody knows that the conduct of the judges of the higher courts cannot even be discussed in parliament and provincial assemblies, as provided in Articles 68 and 114 of the constitution. Judges of special court are the honourablejudges of the three high courts of the country. The prime minister is under the constitutional oath to defend the constitution. Did he bother to discharge his obligation of taking action? When a political party is voted by people in a democratic country, and that too on a specific narrative or a manifesto, it becomesthe legal, moral and ethical obligation of such a party, if it succeeds, to honour its commitments. A U-turn policy never pays.How many U-turns can be accepted by innocent voters of Pakistan is another enigma. Leadership needs to show a cogent cause for abrupt change in its political manifesto without the approval of electorates. The writer is a lawyer and partner at the UMR Practice