IHC bars invoking multiple jurisdictions in NAB cases

• Notes petitioner had already approached PHC over the same property and order
• Seeks govt reply on petition against excluding Supreme Court in NAB matters

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the se­­aling of a house in the federal capit­­al, holding that the matter falls wi­­thin the exclusive jurisdiction of the Accountability Court in Pesha­war, where a reference arising from the al­­­­leged Kohistan scandal is pending.

The court also imposed special costs of Rs100,000 on the petitioner for what it termed “forum-shopping” and lack of candour.

A single-member bench of Justice Shahrukh Arjumand, in a detailed 53-page judgement, rejected a petition filed by Amjad Khan, who had sought the de-sealing of House No. 6, Street No. 154, Sector G-13/4, Islamabad, and the return of household articles, gold ornaments, cash and vehicles allegedly removed from the premises during the sealing operation on July 29, 2026.

The court, however, found the petition barred on multiple grounds. The primary issue was whether the IHC could entertain a challenge to actions arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference pending before Accountability Court-III, Peshawar.

Justice Arjumand, interpreting Sec­­tion 16(e) of the National Accou­ntability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, observed that the provision gives the NAB chairman the statutory discretion to file a reference before “any court established anywhere in Pak­i­s­tan” and that such court “shall have the jurisdiction to try the same”. The court emphasised that the non-obstante clause overrides the general territorial rules applicable to ordinary criminal proceedings.

“The expression ‘any court established anywhere in Pakistan’ manifests a legislative choice to avoid restricting the NAB chairman to the territorial limits of the place where the alleged offence, transaction, accused or property may be situated,” the judgement stated. “The only statutory qualification is that the Court must be a Court established under the Ordinance and that the Chairman must exercise his discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The court also found that the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) in relation to the same orders and property.

“The petitioner did not merely approach the PHC; he voluntarily invoked its jurisdiction in relation to the same property and the same impugned order and, when confronted with the statutory scheme of the NAO, accepted the course whereby his constitutional petition was converted into the very statutory objection contemplated by Section 13 of the Ordinance,” the judgement stated.

IHC seeks responses

Separately, the IHC has sought re­­s­­ponses from the federal governm­e­­nt, secretaries of the National Asse­mbly and Senate, and the Ministry of Law on a petition challenging legislation that seeks to confer jurisdiction over appeals in NAB cases on the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) instead of the Supreme Court.

Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued notices to the respondents during the hearing of a petition fi­­led by the Judicial Activism For­um, challenging the insertion of Section 32-A into the NAB Ordinance. Since the legislation enacted by parliament itself was under challenge, the court also issued a notice to the Attorney General for Pakistan, seeking his assistance on the legal questions involved.

Published in Dawn, September 4th, 2026