Fraud, Failed Oversight and Laiba’s Tragedy
Shazia Mehboob
ISLAMABAD: The tragic death of Laiba, a gold medallist at the International Islamic University Islamabad, following an alleged financial fraud involving Rs7.2 million, has exposed serious failures in public protection, institutional accountability and youth welfare.
Beyond the immediate circumstances of this heartbreaking incident lies a deeper question: why do state institutions so often appear to act decisively only after a tragedy captures public attention?
Protecting citizens, ensuring access to justice and safeguarding the welfare of young people are fundamental responsibilities of the state.
Governments across the world formulate policies, establish institutions and allocate resources to create opportunities for the younger generation. Yet, in Pakistan, the gap between policy and implementation remains a persistent challenge.
A system weakened by nepotism, personal connections and vested interests often fails to prioritise merit, competence and public service. Consequently, young people who should be benefiting from opportunities and institutional support are frequently left to navigate complex social, economic and psychological challenges on their own.
From prolonged power outages and traffic congestion to harassment, sexual violence and online financial fraud, citizens face problems that demand timely and effective institutional responses.
Yet, many find themselves approaching media organisations to have their complaints heard and their grievances addressed. The media, which should serve as an additional channel of accountability, increasingly becomes a substitute for institutions that are expected to protect citizens and deliver justice.
Laiba’s case raises troubling questions about this pattern. The FIA and other authorities have moved to investigate the alleged fraud, but the circumstances surrounding the case also demand scrutiny of the systems that are supposed to prevent such exploitation.
If complaints about online fraud are being registered and citizens continue to suffer substantial financial losses, why are enforcement mechanisms failing to deter perpetrators?
How many warnings, complaints and victims are required before preventive action becomes a priority?
The growing public reliance on social media to highlight alleged injustices further illustrates the problem. In several high-profile cases, including the murders of Noor Mukadam and TikToker Sana Yousaf, public attention and online discussion helped bring wider scrutiny to the circumstances and institutional responses.
Such attention can be valuable in demanding accountability, but justice should never depend on a case becoming viral. Every citizen, regardless of social standing, financial resources or media visibility, deserves an effective response from law enforcement.
Laiba’s tragedy therefore demands more than an investigation into the alleged scam. It calls for a critical examination of the institutional failures that may allow financial fraud to flourish. Authorities must establish the facts transparently, identify any negligence and ensure that those found responsible are held accountable under the law.
Financial fraud complaints also require timely assessment, coordinated enforcement and accessible mechanisms through which victims can seek assistance before their circumstances become overwhelming.
The psychological consequences of financial exploitation must not be overlooked either. Losing a substantial sum of money can produce devastating distress, particularly among young people facing family expectations, academic pressures and uncertainty about their future.
Universities need accessible counselling services, confidential reporting channels and practical guidance to help students recognise fraudulent schemes and seek assistance. These measures cannot replace law enforcement, but they can form an important part of a broader safety net.
The media’s role is equally significant. If journalists and news organisations are increasingly constrained in their ability to question those in power, citizens risk losing one of the important channels through which institutional failures are exposed.
Restricting public-interest reporting does not eliminate public grievances; it can make them harder to bring into the open. A responsible and independent media should be recognised as an essential component of accountability, not merely as a platform to be approached after a crisis.
Ultimately, Laiba’s death must not become another painful headline that fades without meaningful reform. The central issue is not simply whether authorities investigate after public pressure mounts, but whether institutions can prevent harm, respond to complaints promptly and protect citizens without requiring a public outcry.
A state’s effectiveness is measured not by the number of policies it announces or inquiries it launches after a tragedy, but by its ability to protect people before irreversible harm occurs. Laiba’s case should compel Pakistan’s institutions to confront uncomfortable questions about governance, accountability and the value placed on young lives.
Sympathy is necessary, but it is not enough. What is needed is transparent accountability, effective protection against fraud, accessible mental health support and a system in which justice is a right—not a privilege secured through media attention.
Shazia Mehboob is a PhD scholar and a visiting faculty member. She is also an investigative journalist and the founder of The PenPK.com. She tweets @thepenpk.
