By Barrister Sara Ali Syed
Accountability laws in Pakistan have long remained at the center of political and constitutional debate. Over the years, repeated legislative changes, constitutional amendments, the creation of new courts, and even the appointment of new judges have reshaped the judicial landscape. These developments have significantly affected public confidence in the justice system, which today stands increasingly contested in the eyes of many citizens.
The National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2026 is the latest and perhaps one of the most controversial additions to this evolving legal framework. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) itself has historically been a contentious institution, frequently accused of being used as a tool for political engineering and coercion rather than as a neutral mechanism of accountability.
The manner in which the present bill was passed has further intensified these concerns. The legislation was rushed through both Houses of Parliament and approved by the President within hours; remarkably, just one day before the incumbent Chairman NAB’s term was due to expire.
Such haste has raised serious constitutional, legal, and political questions regarding the intent and implications of these amendments.
Key Amendments in the NAB (Amendment) Act, 2026
According to the official legislative text, several fundamental provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 have been altered.
1. Extension of the NAB Chairman’s Tenure
Previously, the NAB Chairman served a non-extendable three-year term.Under the new amendment, the Chairman may now serve a 3-year term extendable once for an additional three years. The extension is granted at the discretion of the Federal Government.
This change has been introduced through an amendment to Section 6 of the Ordinance.
From an institutional perspective, such a provision raises serious concerns regarding the independence of the accountability watchdog, as the possibility of extension may create an element of executive leverage over the office.
2. Expansion of Jurisdiction of Accountability Courts
An amendment to Section 4 clarifies that the jurisdiction of accountability courts is no longer limited to trials, but also extends to appeals. While this may appear to be a procedural clarification, it effectively expands the operational scope of these courts within the accountability framework.
3. Adjustment of Monetary Threshold
Under the amendment to Section 5, the financial threshold for NAB cases; previously fixed at Rs500 million; will now be adjusted annually according to the inflation index published by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics.
Although this adjustment is presented as an attempt to maintain realistic financial thresholds over time, it may also result in numerous corruption cases falling outside NAB’s jurisdiction.
4. Expanded Powers to Grant Bail
Through amendments to Section 9, both accountability courts and the relevant High Courts are now empowered to grant bail under Sections 439, 496, 497, and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
While the expansion of bail powers can be interpreted as a safeguard for personal liberty, its selective application within the accountability regime raises questions about consistency across criminal law.
5. Introduction of a Second Right of Appeal
Perhaps the most controversial amendment is the introduction of Section 32A, which provides for a second appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court following a High Court decision.
Under this provision, A convicted person or the Prosecutor General Accountability, if directed by the Chairman NAB may file a second appeal within 30 days.
From a comparative legal perspective, this provision raises serious concerns.
In most common law jurisdictions; including the United States; the right of appeal is primarily designed as a safeguard for the accused, not the prosecution. Granting the prosecution a second right of appeal is unusual and risks creating a structural imbalance within the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, in Pakistan’s broader criminal framework; including cases of murder, rape, money laundering, corruption, or misconduct; no such second right of appeal exists for the prosecution. The selective introduction of this provision exclusively within the NAB framework raises an obvious legal question:
▪︎ Why has a second right of appeal been created only in NAB law, and whom is it intended to facilitate?
▪︎ Why Was the Bill Passed in Such Haste?
The procedural history of the legislation has itself generated controversy.
Several critical facts stand out:
▪︎ The bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill
▪︎ It was placed on the agenda through an unusual Supplementary Agenda
▪︎ Despite strong protests from opposition, it was passed within hours by both Houses of Parliament.
▪︎ Presidential assent was obtained the very same day.
Such legislative urgency strongly suggests that the amendments were designed to address an immediate political or administrative objective
.
The timing is particularly significant; the extension clause was approved only one day before the sitting NAB Chairman’s term was set to expire.
From a constitutional standpoint, legislation passed under such circumstances risks undermining the principle of institutional neutrality.
Potential Benefits for the Current Government
From a legal and political perspective, the amendments may yield several strategic advantages for the incumbent government.
1. Executive Influence Over the Accountability Institution
By enabling the government to extend the Chairman NAB’s tenure, the amendment may introduce executive leverage over an institution that is meant to function independently.
Institutional independence is a cornerstone of credible accountability systems, and any provision that potentially subjects the leadership of such an institution to executive discretion inevitably raises concerns.
2. Creation of a New Appellate Forum
The most consequential structural change is the shift in appellate jurisdiction.
Previously, The Supreme Court served as the ultimate appellate forum.
Now, Appeals may proceed to the Federal Constitutional Court.
This shift represents a significant restructuring of the judicial appellate hierarchy.
Critics argue that such a change risks being perceived as forum engineering; a legal maneuver that redirects cases toward a potentially more favorable judicial forum.
3. Narrowing the Scope of Accountability
By linking the monetary threshold to inflation, a substantial number of corruption cases may fall outside the jurisdiction of NAB over time.
In practical terms, this may function as de facto relief for influential individuals, thereby weakening the reach of the accountability mechanism.
Legal Concerns
Several constitutional and legal concerns arise from the amendments.
1. The Right to Fair Trial
If the appellate jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is restricted primarily to constitutional questions, without permitting a full reassessment of:
▪︎ Evidence
▪︎ Factual findings
then the arrangement may conflict with Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
2. Judicial Forum Engineering
Replacing the Supreme Court with a newly empowered Constitutional Court for certain appeals risks creating the perception that judicial forums are being selectively structured to influence outcomes.
Such perceptions can undermine the credibility of both the judiciary and the legislative process.
3. Institutional Autonomy of NAB
Allowing the executive to extend the Chairman’s tenure may weaken the institutional autonomy of the accountability watchdog.
Accountability institutions must remain structurally insulated from political influence to maintain legitimacy.
Opposition parties, particularly Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have strongly criticized the amendments. According to the opposition, the legislation represents political engineering through legal instruments, designed to influence ongoing or potential accountability cases.
They argue that rather than strengthening accountability, the amendments risk weakening the integrity and independence of the system.
The NAB Amendments Act 2026 has been presented as an effort to modernize and improve Pakistan’s accountability framework. However, the timing of its passage, the procedural irregularities surrounding its approval, and several of its substantive provisions raise serious constitutional and institutional questions.
The central issue is not merely legislative reform, but whether such reforms enhance accountability; or transform it into a mechanism shaped by political expediency.
The credibility of any accountability system ultimately depends not only on the laws governing it, but on the neutrality, transparency, and fairness with which those laws are implemented.
If legal reforms are perceived as instruments designed to protect political interests rather than strengthen institutions, they risk undermining both the rule of law and the democratic legitimacy of the state.
About the Author
Barrister Sara Ali Syed ▪︎Advocate High Court.
▪︎ President Multan Division of the Association of International Lawyers (AIL Global),
▪︎ Central Information Secretary, South Punjab Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf,
▪︎ Co-Organizer, Election Analysis and Management Cell (South Punjab PTI).
She can be reached at:
Sasyed@bsol.pk.org
Leave a Reply