The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has formally contested the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) recent decision concerning Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz in the ongoing Chaudhry Sugar Mills case. This appeal has been submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court, marking a significant development in one of the high-profile accountability cases involving allegations of financial irregularities and money laundering linked to the sugar mill business.
The Chaudhry Sugar Mills case revolves around accusations that Maryam Nawaz, a prominent shareholder in the company, was involved in dubious financial transactions that allegedly resulted in income beyond her known sources. These transactions raised suspicions of money laundering and financial misconduct, prompting NAB to initiate an inquiry into the matter. However, the case has seen several twists over the years, including Maryam’s release on bail by the LHC in November 2019, which was contingent upon her surrendering her passport to the court as a security measure.
Subsequently, in October 2022, a full bench of the Lahore High Court ordered the return of Maryam Nawaz’s passport after NAB informed the court that it no longer required the travel document for its ongoing investigation. This development appeared to signal a shift in the dynamics of the case, but the controversy surrounding the inquiry’s closure has persisted. NAB’s current petition challenges the LHC’s February 4, 2026, ruling, which questioned the bureau’s authority to close the inquiry without seeking judicial approval.
In its appeal, NAB argues that the Lahore High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the powers vested in the NAB chairman. The bureau insists that under Section 31B(1) of the NAB Ordinance, the chairman possesses the exclusive legal right to discontinue any inquiry or investigation before a formal reference is submitted to the accountability court. NAB maintains that the high court’s insistence on requiring approval from the accountability court before accepting the closure of the inquiry effectively amounts to judicial overreach and an unauthorized amendment of the law.
The petition further emphasizes that the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case is fundamentally a private dispute and does not involve any direct loss to the national treasury. NAB highlights that throughout the investigation, no concrete evidence emerged to substantiate allegations of corruption or illicit enrichment against Maryam Nawaz. Consequently, the bureau decided to terminate the inquiry, categorizing it as a matter outside the scope of public financial loss or criminal wrongdoing.
Following the closure of the inquiry, Maryam Nawaz sought the return of her Rs70 million surety bonds, which had been submitted as part of her bail conditions. The Lahore High Court directed NAB to present a detailed report on the inquiry’s closure to the accountability court and ordered that the court decide on the matter within one month. NAB contends that this directive is legally flawed, arguing that once the inquiry is withdrawn at the preliminary stage, the accountability court lacks jurisdiction to intervene or approve the closure.
Moreover, NAB criticizes the LHC for issuing its ruling without notifying the Attorney General’s office, thereby bypassing a key procedural requirement. The bureau insists that the chairman’s decision to withdraw the case should be final and binding, and that the high court’s attempt to reinterpret the statutory provisions undermines the legislative intent. NAB’s appeal also points out that the Lahore High Court took suo motu notice of the issue despite not having the proper jurisdiction, further complicating the legal landscape.
This appeal has been filed through an additional prosecutor general, signaling NAB’s determination to uphold its institutional authority and challenge what it perceives as judicial encroachment. The case remains a focal point in Pakistan’s ongoing struggle to balance accountability mechanisms with legal safeguards, especially when high-profile political figures are involved. As the Federal Constitutional Court prepares to hear the matter, all eyes will be on how the judiciary navigates the complex interplay between legislative provisions and judicial oversight in accountability cases.
