| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 611 2026 SLD 611 = 2026 SHC 551 = 2026 SHC 559 |
Sindh High Court
Const. Petition No. D-664 of 2026
Presented By: Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro
Petitioner : Zia ul Hassan son of Muhammad Aslam Khan Sadozai through Mr. Habib-ur- Rehman Jiskani, Advocate
Respondent No.1 : The Federation of Pakistan Through Mr. Mohsin Shahwani, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan
Respondent No.2 : The National Accountability Bureau through Mr. Moazam Ali, Special Prosecutor Date of hearing & Order : 06.03.2026 Date of Reasons : 09.03.2026
Const. Petition No. D-664 of 2026
Presented By: Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro
Petitioner : Zia ul Hassan son of Muhammad Aslam Khan Sadozai through Mr. Habib-ur- Rehman Jiskani, Advocate
Respondent No.1 : The Federation of Pakistan Through Mr. Mohsin Shahwani, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan
Respondent No.2 : The National Accountability Bureau through Mr. Moazam Ali, Special Prosecutor Date of hearing & Order : 06.03.2026 Date of Reasons : 09.03.2026
(Zia ul Hassan
VS
. the Federation of Pakistan and another)
Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section: 5, 9, 18, 19, 20, 27, 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI Present: Case Summary: The petitioner challenged the continuation of a NAB inquiry/investigation against him, arguing that: He was never initially named as an accused and the alleged liability was below Rs. 500 million (the NAB jurisdiction threshold after the 2022 amendment). NAB itself recommended termination of the investigation, but no action was taken by NAB Headquarters Islamabad. The investigation had been ongoing since 2017, far exceeding the statutory limit of 12 months for inquiry and investigation under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999. The Court observed: NAB has broad powers under Sections 5(o), 9, 18, 19, 20, 27, and 31 of NAO, 1999 to inquire, investigate, and obtain information. The petitioner was under undue harassment due to excessive delay and successive investigations without collecting incriminating evidence. Malice in fact was not established, but malice in law (manifestly illegal and anomalous action) was present. Judicial review can be exercised when investigations exceed jurisdiction or abuse the legal process. Precedents (e.g., Said Zaman Khan, Chairman NAB vs Muhammad Irshad Khan) support quashing investigations conducted without sufficient evidence or beyond statutory limits. Outcome: The Court implied that the NAB inquiry/investigation against the petitioner was without lawful authority, abused the process of law, and should be terminated, as the statutory criteria and thresholds were not met. Key Sections Used: Section 5(o) – Definition of “offence” (threshold Rs. 500 million). Section 9(a)(v) & (xii) – Corruption and corrupt practices (assets disproportionate to income; aiding/abetting). Section 18 – Cognizance of offences; inquiry and investigation procedure. Section 19 – Power to call for information and documents. Section 20 – Reporting of suspicious financial transactions. Section 27 – Power to seek assistance from government departments, banks, authorities. Section 31 – Prohibition to hamper inquiry/investigation. Two-Word Descriptors: Excessive Investigation Jurisdictional Violation ORDER Through this…