A new legal dispute has emerged between Pakistan’s accountability watchdog and the judiciary after the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenged a ruling of the Lahore High Court (LHC) regarding the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case involving Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz.
The controversy centers on whether NAB must formally present a reference in an accountability court before closing an inquiry that has already been withdrawn. The issue has now been taken to the Federal Constitutional Court for clarification.
Background of the Case
The investigation into the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case began in November 2018. During the course of the inquiry, Maryam Nawaz was arrested in August 2019 and remained on physical remand for 48 days. Later, the Lahore High Court granted her post-arrest bail in October 2019.
At the time of granting bail, the court directed her to submit two surety bonds worth Rs10 million each, deposit Rs70 million, and surrender her passport.
NAB initially challenged the bail decision in the Supreme Court, but in August 2023 the bureau withdrew its petition.
Withdrawal of the Inquiry
Following amendments to the NAB law, the bureau reviewed several ongoing investigations, including the Chaudhry Sugar Mills inquiry. NAB’s investigation officer concluded that the available evidence did not establish corruption or corrupt practices.
Based on this assessment, the NAB Executive Board decided on April 3, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings under Section 31B(1) of the NAB Ordinance.
After the withdrawal, Maryam Nawaz approached the Lahore High Court seeking the return of the Rs70 million she had deposited as part of her bail conditions.
LHC’s Directive
In February 2026, the Lahore High Court ruled that the case could only be formally closed through the accountability court. It directed NAB to file a reference within one week so that the accountability court in Lahore could officially dispose of the matter. The court also ordered the accountability court to decide the reference within one month.
NAB’s Challenge
NAB has now contested this ruling before the Federal Constitutional Court through the additional prosecutor general. The bureau argues that if a case is withdrawn at the inquiry stage, the accountability court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
According to NAB, the law does not require judicial approval to withdraw such cases. Therefore, the bureau maintains that the high court cannot impose a requirement that does not exist in the legislation.
NAB further stated that the LHC issued the decision without notifying the Office of the Attorney General. The bureau also claimed that the high court effectively exercised powers similar to taking suo motu notice, which it believes falls outside the court’s authority in this situation.
Legal Question at the Center
The dispute now raises an important legal question: whether NAB can independently withdraw a corruption inquiry or whether the accountability court must formally approve the closure.
The Constitutional Court’s decision could have broader implications for how accountability cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the powers of NAB and the role of accountability courts when investigations are withdrawn before reaching the trial stage.
As the matter moves forward, legal experts are closely watching the case because the ruling may help clarify the procedural framework governing corruption inquiries in Pakistan.