The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that second appeals in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases, along with related bail applications, fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), settling an important constitutional question that emerged after the establishment of the FCC and amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance.
The judgment was delivered on 24 July 2026 by a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan.
The constitutional issue arose following the Twenty-Seventh Constitutional Amendment, which established the Federal Constitutional Court, and the insertion of Section 32-A into the National Accountability Ordinance on 5 March 2026. Under the amended law, a convicted person—or the Prosecutor General Accountability on the directions of the NAB Chairman—may file a second appeal before the FCC within 30 days of a High Court judgment.
Key Constitutional Question
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it could continue hearing bail applications in NAB cases after jurisdiction over second appeals had shifted to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Counsel for accused Amir Mahmood argued that post-conviction bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an independent legal remedy and that Section 32-A only refers to second appeals, making no mention of bail.
The Attorney General for Pakistan and NAB, however, maintained that the principal appeal and all proceedings arising from it, including bail applications, should remain before the same judicial forum to avoid conflicting proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In its 30-page judgment, the Supreme Court held that Articles 175F(1)(a) and 175F(2) of the Constitution, when read together with Sections 32 and 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, make it clear that the Federal Constitutional Court is the competent forum for second appeals in NAB cases as well as all related pending proceedings.
The Court ruled that a bail application is not an independent proceeding detached from the main case but rather an ancillary matter arising directly from the appeal. Therefore, allowing the appeal to proceed before the FCC while the bail application remained before the Supreme Court would create parallel proceedings, legal uncertainty and the possibility of conflicting judicial orders.
Jurisdiction Determined by Law, Not Preference
The judgment emphasised that judicial jurisdiction cannot be created by the wishes of litigants, previous practice, public opinion or the consent of the parties.
The Court observed that the issue was not about one institution surrendering or expanding its powers but about respecting the constitutional distribution of judicial authority.
It further held that the absence of a jurisdictional objection by NAB in earlier cases could not confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court where the Constitution and statutory framework had reassigned that authority to the FCC.
The bench also noted that the legal remedy available to convicted persons had not been abolished. Instead, the earlier discretionary mechanism of seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court had been replaced with a statutory right to file a second appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court.
Decision Applies Across All NAB Cases
The Supreme Court made it clear that the ruling should not be interpreted as a struggle for institutional authority between the Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court or viewed through the lens of any particular political case.
According to the judgment, the legal principle applies equally to NAB, prosecutors and all accused persons in accountability proceedings. Where the law designates the Federal Constitutional Court as the appellate forum, no party may choose another court based on convenience or the likelihood of a favourable outcome.
The Court stressed that the proper forum is determined by the Constitution and the law, not by the identity of the litigant or the nature of the case.
Principle Established by the Judgment
The judgment concludes that judicial independence requires courts not only to safeguard their constitutional authority but also to respect the constitutional limits placed upon that authority.
By directing that NAB appeals and all related proceedings be heard before a single judicial forum, the Supreme Court said the ruling promotes legal certainty, prevents forum shopping and ensures that each constitutional court exercises only the jurisdiction assigned to it by law.
