ISLAMABAD: The federal government and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Tuesday took the stance that following recent amendments to the NAB law, the authority to hear appeals against bails and convictions now lies solely and exclusively with the Federal Constitutional Court.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan, heard a case on the jurisdiction to hear appeals against bails and convictions in NAB references, in light of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (Amendment) Ordinance 2026.
During the course of hearing, the attorney general argued that after recent amendments to the NAB law, the authority to hear appeals against bails and convictions now rests with the Federal Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court of Pakistan. How it could be possible for one part of a case to be heard in the Supreme Court and another in the Constitutional Court, the AG questioned.
Similarly, the NAB prosecutor fully supported the federal government’s stance. However, Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, the counsel for petitioner Aamir Mahmood, opposed this, arguing that nowhere in the NAB amendments is it written that bail cases will be heard in the Federal Constitutional Court. He contended that according to the law, only appeals against convictions in NAB cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Citing a previous case, he mentioned that even after the NAB amendments, the Supreme Court had granted bail in a case, and the NAB raised no objection.
Upon the court’s inquiry, the NAB prosecutor admitted that on March 18, their institution indeed had not raised any jurisdictional objection to a bail case in the Supreme Court. To this, Justice Shahid remarked that jurisdiction is the very first hurdle which the NAB removed itself, adding that failing to raise an objection on jurisdiction reflects the NAB’s incompetence.
Meanwhile, Justice Musarrat questioned why there has been such a sudden change to the NAB stance. Meanwhile, the court directed the petitioner’s counsel to prepare a rejoinder and adjourned the hearing until July 16.
