ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has challenged the recent decision of the Lahore High Court (LHC) regarding Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case, filing an appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court. NAB stated that no evidence of corruption or financial misconduct was found against Maryam Nawaz during the investigation and that the High Court had unnecessarily interfered with NAB’s legal authority.
Background of the Case
The Chaudhry Sugar Mills case involved allegations that certain “suspicious” business transactions of the sugar mill, in which Maryam Nawaz was a major shareholder, resulted in illegal income and potential money laundering.
In November 2019, the Lahore High Court granted Maryam Nawaz bail, requiring her to surrender her passport to the court. Later, in October 2022, a full bench of the LHC returned her passport after NAB confirmed it no longer required the travel document.
NAB’s Position and Legal Argument
In its petition, NAB argued that the High Court had overstepped its authority by questioning the chairman’s decision to close the inquiry against Maryam Nawaz. The bureau emphasized that the case was of a private nature and did not involve any loss to the national exchequer, and therefore the NAB chairman had full legal authority to terminate proceedings before filing a reference.
NAB also claimed that the Lahore High Court misinterpreted Section 31B(1) of the NAB amendments, making the closure of the inquiry conditional on judicial approval. The bureau stated that requiring such approval was effectively equivalent to amending legislation passed by Parliament, which was not intended by lawmakers.
After concluding the investigation and determining that it was a private matter, NAB closed the case. Maryam Nawaz then approached the LHC to request the return of her Rs70 million surety bonds.
Court Proceedings and NAB’s Appeal
The LHC directed that NAB submit its report on the closure of the inquiry to the accountability court, which was to decide within one month regarding final approval and the return of the surety amount. NAB argued that if a case is withdrawn during the inquiry stage, the accountability court has no judicial authority over the matter.
The bureau also stated that the LHC issued its decision without notifying the Attorney General’s office and took suo motu notice of the case despite lacking jurisdiction. NAB maintained that once the chairman had approved the withdrawal, the High Court had no authority to reinterpret the law.
The appeal, filed through an additional Prosecutor General, requests the Federal Constitutional Court to declare the LHC’s February 4, 2026 order null and void, asserting that NAB acted fully within its legal powers.
