Ordinance validity: IHC issues notices to federation, NAB

On Tuesday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued notices to the national government and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in response to an intra-court appeal (ICA) that questioned the constitutional validity of the National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024. A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Muhammad Asif, heard the case and directed the relevant parties to respond.

The appeal focused on the constitutional legitimacy of the Ordinance, which had previously been deemed irrelevant by a single bench judgment on 29 September 2026.

The petitioner, Malik Naji Ullah, represented by counsel Azhar Siddique, argued that the Ordinance's expiry should not render judicial review of its constitutionality obsolete, especially since its provisions were already put into practice and could have ongoing legal implications for those facing extended physical detention. The counsel raised concerns regarding the enhancement of the maximum physical remand period from 14 days under the 1999 National Accountability Ordinance to 40 days, as well as the reduction of penalties for officials who initiated cases with a lack of good faith or based on false or fabricated evidence.

Furthermore, the counsel questioned several constitutional issues, including personal liberty, due process, equality before the law, parliamentary supremacy, and the extent of executive authority in enacting ordinances under Article 89 of the Constitution. They pointed to NAB's report, which detailed the physical remands carried out during the Ordinance's operation and argued that some detentions surpassed the previous statutory limit and persisted beyond its expiration.

The appeal sought judicial resolution of these matters, requested the production of a comprehensive record of physical remands, and demanded disclosure of the relevant Federal Cabinet records. Malik Naji Ullah also aimed to invalidate the impugned judgment and called for the court to address the constitutional questions in their true sense or to redirect the case for further examination.