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 investigation. This appeal has been submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court, marking a significant development in a high-profile case that revolves around allegations of money laundering and suspicious financial dealings linked to the Chaudhry Sugar Mills, where Maryam Nawaz held a substantial shareholding.
The origins of this case trace back several years, with the LHC initially granting Maryam Nawaz bail in November 2019, under the condition that she surrender 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 her passport after NAB confirmed that it no longer required the travel document for investigative purposes. These judicial decisions have formed the backdrop against which the accountability bureau now challenges the court’s authority to interfere in its internal decision-making processes.
In its petition, NAB asserts that the Lahore High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by questioning the NAB chairman’s discretion to close the inquiry against Maryam Nawaz. The bureau insists that the high court’s February 4, 2026, ruling should be declared null and void, emphasizing that the NAB chairman possesses the unequivocal legal power to withdraw any proceedings before a formal reference is filed. This stance highlights an ongoing debate over the limits of judicial oversight in accountability matters.
The bureau’s appeal further stresses that the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case is fundamentally a private dispute, with no direct financial loss to the national treasury. NAB maintains that throughout the investigation, no concrete evidence emerged to substantiate claims of corruption or illicit enrichment against Maryam Nawaz. This point is crucial, as it underpins the bureau’s decision to close the inquiry, which it argues was justified and in accordance with the law.
Central to NAB’s argument is the interpretation of Section 31B(1) of the NAB (Amendment) Act. The bureau contends that the Lahore High Court misread this provision by imposing a requirement for judicial approval before the closure of an inquiry. NAB insists that the chairman’s authority to terminate proceedings at the inquiry stage is absolute and does not necessitate accountability court consent. The petition criticizes the high court for effectively attempting to rewrite legislation by introducing conditions not stipulated by Parliament, asserting that any such requirement would have been explicitly included had it been intended.
Following the closure of the inquiry, Maryam Nawaz sought the return of her Rs70 million surety bonds from the Lahore High Court. The court directed NAB to submit its closure report to the accountability court and ordered the court to decide on the approval and refund within one month. NAB, however, maintains that once the proceedings are withdrawn at the inquiry phase, the accountability court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, and no judicial approval is legally necessary for such withdrawal.
Moreover, NAB has pointed out procedural irregularities in the LHC’s ruling, noting that the decision was issued without notifying the attorney general’s office, which is a significant oversight in legal protocol. The bureau also alleges that the Lahore High Court took suo motu notice of the case despite not having the proper jurisdiction, further complicating the legal landscape.
This appeal has been lodged through an additional prosecutor general, underscoring the seriousness with which NAB is approaching this challenge. The outcome of this constitutional petition will likely have far-reaching implications for the scope of judicial intervention in accountability cases and the powers vested in NAB’s leadership to manage investigations independently.
