By Musawir Qureshi
A well-known proverb says, “Might makes right.” In other words, the one who holds power and authority often gets to impose their will.
Recently, an audit report in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa revealed that dozens of government vehicles could not be accounted for. The issue raises serious questions about the protection of public assets, administrative accountability, record management, and the procedures for recovering government property after officials retire.
The most significant case involves the Livestock and Dairy Development Department. According to the audit report for the fiscal year 2023–24, the department presented a record of 97 vehicles. However, verification with the Excise Department revealed another 80 vehicles registered in the name of the Director General of Livestock that were neither recorded in the department’s official inventory nor physically traceable.
These included 10 Suzuki Wagon Rs, one Suzuki Bolan, one Toyota GLI, nine Toyota Hilux vehicles, and 59 other vehicles purchased between 2007 and 2021 under various development projects.
If vehicles purchased with taxpayers’ money, registered in the name of a government department, cannot be found in official records or on the ground, the obvious question is: Where did these vehicles go?
If they were being used by unauthorized or unrelated individuals, the matter extends beyond administrative negligence and enters the realm of possible misuse of public property. The audit report itself pointed to weak administrative controls and expressed concern over the potential illegal use of these vehicles.
Reports suggest that the government has initiated inquiries and issued notices for the recovery of the missing vehicles.
However, the real issue goes far beyond these 80 vehicles.
The fundamental question is: How can a retired government official continue to possess a government vehicle?
When an ordinary public employee retires, they are required to return their office, furniture, files, computers, and every other government asset. Why should a government vehicle become the personal property of any official?
Unfortunately, our system sometimes appears to function in reverse, where accountability becomes the exception rather than the rule.
A government vehicle does not belong to an individual. It is purchased with public funds. Its fuel is paid for by taxpayers. Its maintenance comes from the public treasury. Even the driver’s salary is financed by public money.
If such a vehicle remains parked in the garage of a retired official or continues to serve personal purposes after retirement, then a legitimate question arises: Who is responsible for holding them accountable?
Another important question follows: Does retirement only end an official’s position, or should it also end the privileges attached to that office?
The problem in Pakistan is not merely the misuse of government resources by certain officials. The deeper tragedy is a system that sometimes creates the perception that once someone reaches a senior position, they become immune from accountability.
Recently, reports also emerged regarding legislation in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly proposing lifetime official privileges for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. If legislation is used to create permanent benefits for public officeholders instead of serving the public interest, it naturally raises concerns. When lawmakers enact laws that appear to benefit themselves, people inevitably ask: Who will hold the powerful accountable?
At a time when ordinary citizens struggle with soaring electricity bills, rising fuel prices, expensive groceries, and increasing taxes, the disappearance of government vehicles for years inevitably raises questions about the protection of public assets.
The Issue Is Not Just About Vehicles It Is About Governance
Some may consider the disappearance of a single vehicle insignificant. However, when official records fail to match reality, the problem extends far beyond transportation. It reflects weaknesses in governance, oversight, and accountability.
Every government department should maintain an accurate record of each vehicle, including its registration number, engine number, chassis number, assigned driver, responsible officer, current location, and official purpose.
Whenever an officer retires or is transferred, the vehicle should be returned immediately, and its physical handover should be properly verified.
If the Excise Department’s records confirm the existence of a vehicle while the department itself claims it has no idea where it is, this represents a deeply alarming administrative failure.
The problem is therefore not merely about missing vehicles it is about deficient record management, ineffective oversight, and weak accountability mechanisms.
Does This Happen in Developed Countries?
An equally important question is whether retired government officials in developed countries continue enjoying official vehicles and other state-funded privileges in the same manner.
And are similar benefits available to ordinary workers, laborers, or elderly citizens?
If not, then why should the privileged continue enjoying permanent benefits while ordinary citizens bear the burden?
If a retired official is legally entitled to retain a government vehicle, then the legal basis, duration, and conditions should be clearly defined.
However, if a retired or unauthorized individual continues using a government vehicle merely because of influence, personal connections, or former status, then it represents an abuse of public resources.
Keeping a government vehicle after retirement is not simply about retaining a car; it symbolizes the misuse of state property for personal benefit and reinforces the perception that power overrides the rule of law.
That should never be acceptable.
The law must apply equally to everyone.
When an ordinary citizen commits even a minor offence, legal action is often swift. Yet when public resources are misused on a large scale, the matter frequently remains limited to inquiries, committees, and reports.
People are therefore justified in asking whether the law moves quickly against the weak but slowly against the powerful.
Whether someone is a senior bureaucrat or a junior employee, if they are proven guilty of corruption, abuse of authority, or causing financial loss to the public treasury, legal action should be taken without discrimination.
The true strength of the rule of law lies in treating the powerful and the powerless equally.
The Most Dangerous Form of Corruption
Corruption is not limited to stealing money.
Its most dangerous form is the mindset that views public office as a means of personal privilege rather than public service.
When that mentality takes hold:
Government vehicles become personal cars.
Public fuel finances private travel.
Official residences become personal estates.
Public resources are used to serve private interests and personal networks.
The inevitable consequence is that citizens begin believing the state exists only for the influential and well-connected.
No nation can thrive under such a perception.
Accountability Must Produce Results
The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should not stop at issuing recovery notices. It should conduct a comprehensive physical verification of all government assets and establish a modern digital asset management system.
This requires:
Physical verification of every government vehicle.
GPS tracking and complete logbook records.
Mandatory return of vehicles immediately upon retirement or transfer.
Clear legal action against anyone who refuses to return government property.
Identification of officials responsible for missing assets.
Criminal proceedings where investigations establish wrongdoing.
Most importantly, the findings of every inquiry should be made public.
Citizens do not merely want to hear that “an investigation has been initiated.”
They deserve answers:
Where were the vehicles?
Who was using them?
How much financial loss did the government suffer?
How many vehicles were recovered?
What action was taken against those responsible?
Who Will Hold the Powerful Accountable?
Pakistan belongs as much to ordinary citizens as it does to those in positions of authority.
The public treasury is not the personal property of any official, minister, or government. It is a trust built upon the taxes and hard work of the people.
Government vehicles are public trust.
Government offices are public trust.
Public funds are public trust.
Public office is a responsibility to serve—not a symbol of privilege or personal power.
Unfortunately, some individuals come to regard public office not as a duty but as a source of lifelong influence and benefits.
That mindset must change.
Public office is not a private estate—it is a public trust.
Anyone who betrays that trust, regardless of rank or position, must face equal treatment under the law.
Pakistan must now decide whether it wishes to remain a country governed by the principle of “Might Makes Right” or by the principle that public trust demands public accountability.
Because if government vehicles cannot be accounted for, if public assets are not protected, and if public money is beyond scrutiny, then the question is no longer simply:
Where did the 80 vehicles go?
The real question is:
Who will safeguard the people’s trust?
And above all:
When will the people finally receive a full account of how their money has been used?
