The credibility of a government is not measured merely by the rules it makes, but by the courage with which it applies them equally to everyone. When a government demands declarations of foreign nationality from civil servants but reportedly exempts selected occupational groups from the same exercise, a fundamental question arises: Is accountability a universal principle of governance, or a privilege reserved for the powerful?

The reported decision of the Establishment Division to exclude the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS), Police Service of Pakistan (PSP), Secretariat Group (SG) and Office Management Group (OMG) from the latest exercise concerning declarations of foreign nationality demands serious public scrutiny. If confirmed by the original Office Memorandum, such exemptions require a clear, legally defensible explanation.

This is not an argument against any particular occupational group. Pakistan needs competent and professional civil servants in every department. The real issue is whether occupational status can justify exemption from a requirement imposed on other public servants. A civil servant is a servant of the state, not the beneficiary of a privileged domain. Public office is a trust, not a personal entitlement.

Such decisions reinforce a deeply disturbing perception that there are two Pakistans: one for the common man and another for the privileged elite. In one Pakistan, ordinary citizens and less influential public servants must comply with rules and face consequences for violations. In the other, powerful and influential groups appear to enjoy exemptions and a different standard of accountability. The law must not become stricter as one’s influence diminishes and more flexible as one’s power increases. Even if the reported exemptions have a legitimate explanation, the government must provide it openly rather than allow public suspicion to grow.

The responsibilities of PAS and PSP officers make this question particularly important. Their work involves administration, policy implementation, law enforcement and the exercise of substantial public authority. Secretariat Group and Office Management Group officers also perform important functions in government. Their responsibilities should strengthen the case for transparency, not weaken it.

Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. This does not mean that every public servant must face identical requirements in every circumstance. Reasonable classifications may be lawful when supported by legitimate objectives and a rational basis. However, occupational influence or institutional status alone cannot justify preferential treatment.

It is equally important to distinguish between foreign citizenship, dual nationality, permanent residence abroad and possession of foreign travel documents. These are not interchangeable legal concepts. Nor does foreign nationality, by itself, establish disloyalty or misconduct. A declaration requirement is a means of obtaining information; it does not automatically establish wrongdoing or disqualify an officer. The government must clarify whether the exercise concerns disclosure, legal eligibility or an underlying statutory restriction.

The Establishment Division must therefore answer three straightforward questions. Is the reported exclusion an exemption from submitting declarations, an exclusion from the latest compilation exercise, or an exemption from an underlying legal requirement? What precise legal authority supports the distinction? And why should officers belonging to these occupational groups be treated differently from other public servants?

The original Office Memorandum, including its date, reference number, legal authority and complete text, should be made public so that the matter can be judged on evidence rather than speculation. If legitimate security or operational concerns warrant special procedures, the government can establish appropriate safeguards without automatically exempting entire groups from accountability.

Pakistan’s civil service cannot command public confidence if compliance appears compulsory for the less powerful but negotiable for the influential. Selective accountability deepens distrust, weakens institutional credibility and reinforces the belief that privilege, rather than law, determines how the state treats its people.

The remedy is straightforward: publish the memorandum, disclose the legal basis for every exemption, explain the criteria for differential treatment and ensure that all officers covered by the applicable rules comply. If an exemption lacks adequate legal or policy justification, it should be reconsidered. If it is justified, the government should demonstrate why.

Pakistan does not need a system in which every officer is treated identically regardless of the law. It needs a system in which every difference in treatment is justified by law and the public interest. Accountability must be fair, transparent and free from bureaucratic favouritism.

No occupational group should be above accountability, and no public servant should be unfairly burdened because he or she belongs to a less influential group. If declarations are necessary, the requirement must be fair. If exemptions are necessary, their legal basis must be clear.

A government cannot credibly preach equality while leaving the appearance of selective accountability unexplained. Public office confers responsibility, not immunity.

Pakistan deserves one standard of accountability, one standard of justice and one Pakistan—not one for the common man and another for the privileged elite.

Dr Alamdar Hussain Malik
Advisor Academics, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Swat
Former Financial Advisor, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan