Supreme Court to Rule on Jurisdiction for NAB Appeals and Bails
The Supreme Court of Pakistan is set to determine whether it retains the authority to hear bail applications and appeals related to National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases, or if these matters must now be transferred to the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). This jurisdictional question arises from the Constitution (27th Amendment) and the NAB Amendment Act of 2026.
During a hearing on Tuesday, July 15th, 2026, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan argued that all pending NAB appeals and bail applications should be heard by the FCC. He cited Section 32-A of the NAB Amendment Act, inserted on March 5th, which allows for a second appeal to the FCC against High Court decisions in NAB cases. The AGP contended that this amendment effectively removes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in such matters, though the right of appeal itself remains intact and is now routed through the FCC.
However, a senior counsel representing an under-trial prisoner, Aamir Mahmood, opposed this view. He argued that the second appeal provision in Section 32-A applies only to convictions awarded by High Courts. For pending matters, particularly bail applications for individuals not yet convicted, the Supreme Court retains competence under Section 32 of the NAB law and Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This same argument has been raised by former Prime Minister Imran Khan and Bushra Imran in their appeals concerning the Al-Qadir Trust case, with chamber appeals filed after their initial plea was returned. The NAB lawyer conceded that the bureau had previously objected to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, has postponed further proceedings until July 16th.
This case highlights a significant constitutional and jurisdictional challenge stemming from recent legislative amendments concerning accountability cases. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of new laws that potentially redirect appeals and bail hearings from the Supreme Court to the Federal Constitutional Court. The AGP's stance emphasizes a desire for procedural consistency, arguing that bail and appeal forums should align, while defense counsel stresses the distinction between appeals against convictions and pre-conviction bail applications. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will clarify the legal landscape for NAB cases and set a precedent for how legislative changes impact judicial review and fundamental rights like the right to bail. This situation underscores the dynamic interplay between legislative intent, judicial interpretation, and the evolving framework of accountability and justice in Pakistan, particularly in the context of high-profile corruption cases and the potential for forum shopping or jurisdictional disputes.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.