NAO Section 32-A: IHC seeks Centre’s response to plea challenging constitutional validity

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday sought a response from the federal government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), particularly the provision allowing a second appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).

A single-member bench of Justice Umair Majeed Malik heard the petition filed by the Judicial Activism Panel, which includes Punjab Assembly members Muhammad Ijaz Sharif and Sheikh Imtiaz Mahmood, along with Advocate Munir Ahmed, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 32-A of the NAB Ordinance.

The petitioner, through the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, has impugned vires of Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (“NAO, 1999”).

During the hearing, Advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique, counsel for the petitioners and an advocate of the Supreme Court, argued that it was necessary for the court to examine the constitutional validity of the authority to file a second NAB appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court.

He mentioned that on the previous hearing, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir had issued notices to the relevant parties, including the Attorney General. However, he informed the court that the case had been fixed before him but no judicial order transferring the case was present in the court file. He clarified that he had no objection to the transfer of the case, but that the prevailing judicial procedure and precedent regarding the transfer of cases should be placed before the court.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that, in light of Article 185 of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, it was necessary to examine the constitutional validity of Section 32-A. According to him, clarity was required on the constitutional validity of the authority to file a second NAB appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court.

The Deputy Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the federal government, sought time to file a reply. Advocate Azhar Siddique opposed the request, arguing that the matter was of a brief nature and should not be subjected to unnecessary delay. He stated that the relevant parties should file their replies so that the legal and constitutional position could be clarified.

The court granted time to the federal government and relevant authorities to file their replies, adjourned further hearing of the case until November 20, 2026, and directed that an advance copy of the reply be provided to the court.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026