National Account ability Bauru (NAB) being the important anti-graft agency has been on the media radar since its establishment. The spirit, intent, objectives and performance of this institution may be commendable but the way the NAB law was legislated, the manner and circumstances in which it was applied, the unbridled authority of the chairman, the mechanism of burden of proof on the accused, and the process of arrest, remand, investigation, prosecution and trial has always been a subject of debate. There have been judgments of the superior courts on the working and prosecution. Even in some judgments, certain guidelines have been given for improvement in its working. Actually, the purpose behind the enactment of NAB law was to provide effective measures for detection, investigation, prosecution and speedy disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practices, misuse or abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of property, taking of kickbacks, commissions and for matters connected and ancillary or incidental thereto, but how much the objectives have been achieved, it can be debated on both sides. The Parliament recently suggested 27 amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 which have touched almost all important sections of the NAB law. Some of them are very important including the definition of certain clauses of NAB sections, appointment and tenure of chairman, jurisdiction and cognizance of NAB, role of prosecutor general, case management and trial of offences, arrest, investigation, enquiry & remand of the accused, tender of pardon, approval of the State Bank of Pakistan in banking matters and restriction on issuance of public statements and many others. It is important for the future continuity and credibility of NAB as an institution that some amendment should also be introduced to redraft its mandate and should act and perform as Commission and not under the authority and whims of one man. The president in the first round did not give his assent to the amended Bill under the Constitution. However, despite that the president returned the bill to amend the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999), the Parliament again passed the Bill on the same pattern in a joint session under Article 75 (2) of the Constitution by majority and after its presentation again to the president, he shall give his assent within 10 days, failing which the assent shall be deemed to have been given. There is no doubt that there has been a consistent demand from all political parties for improvement in NAB working and the law. There have also been observations and judgments of superior courts about the NAB working and prosecution. Though the Parliament has tried to address many issues through these amendments relating to NAB working and prosecution and certainly there are among some good amendments, which include appointment and tenure of chairman, jurisdiction and cognizance of NAB, role of prosecutor general NAB, case management and trial of offences, arrest, investigation, enquiry & remand of accused, tender of pardon, the definition of willful default, prior approval of the State Bank of Pakistan in banking matters, tenure of security of judge of accountability court, quantum of offence for declaring the offence against public at large and restriction on issuance of public statements, bail granting power to Accountability Court, providing filing of appeal mechanism against Accountability Court judgment and that more importantly if the accused has been acquitted by the court on the ground that the case was initiated with mala fide intention or based on false or fabricated evidence, the person responsible shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Some amendments have also been introduced in the present NAB law by the Parliament which might receive a great difference of opinion from various quarters and would have a chance to challenge in the constitutional courts for final determination and application which include that the proposed amended Bill shall come into force at once and shall be deemed to have taken effect on and from commencement of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the definitions and application of corruption and corrupt practices & the applicability of the definition of Benamidar and that that the convict shall be entitled to benefit under section 382-B of the Code. It is also important for the future continuity and credibility of NAB as an institution that some amendment should also be introduced to redraft its mandate and should act and perform as Commission and not under the authority and whims of one man. The NAB should also work vigorously to create an impression that it is not the agency of political victimization and to set up a cell with a group of professional experts for improving governance, to rectify systemic issues which are the root causes and responsible for corruption and corrupt practices like other similar agencies in the world. It is also important to start working to improve the image of independent and professional investigation and prosecution within and outside NAB, and to establish a vigilant cell to monitor the working of NAB officials to check their misuse of authority. The patchwork in NAB law would not address the real issues of corruption and legal controversies in future unless the whole law was redrafted through the Parliament after a debate by adding modern requirements and strategies to the law to deal with white-collar crimes, corruption and corrupt practices and to as well streamline the governance trends in Pakistan by issuing National Anti Corruption Strategy for a period of ten years. The writer is a practicing lawyer at Supreme Court and has served as Chairman, Federal Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Senior Advisor Federal Ombudsman. He can be reached at: hafizahsaan47@gmail.com.