The NAB amendments and pending references: where matters stand

Few statutes have been rewritten, struck down and reinstated as quickly as the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. This alert states the position as of mid-January 2026, for anyone with a reference, inquiry or investigation that has been in the system since 2022.

What changed

Parliament amended the Ordinance twice in 2022. The amendments confined NAB's jurisdiction to corruption and corruption-related offences involving five hundred million rupees or more, took matters of federal and provincial taxation and levies out of NAB's reach, protected decisions of the cabinet and its committees taken in good faith, and tightened the evidentiary and procedural rules of accountability trials [precise provisions — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER].

In September 2023, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court struck down several of these amendments by majority and directed that closed inquiries, investigations and references be restored [CITATION — TO BE VERIFIED]. Intra-court appeals followed under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023. In 2024, a larger bench allowed those appeals and set aside the 2023 judgment, restoring the amendments [CITATION AND DATE — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER]. Parliament has since made further changes, including to the permissible period of physical remand [current period — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER].

What it means

As of early 2026, the amended Ordinance holds the field. Three consequences follow.

First, the threshold governs. A reference below five hundred million rupees does not belong in an accountability court. Matters that fall short are returned to NAB for transfer to the forum the underlying offence supports — the Federal Investigation Agency, a provincial anti-corruption establishment, or the ordinary criminal courts.

Second, tax is out. Allegations that are in substance about taxation, levies or imposts belong to the machinery of the tax statutes, not to NAB. An accused facing a revenue dispute dressed as an accountability case has a jurisdictional objection worth taking early.

Third, the whiplash left a paper trail. Many references were transferred out in 2022 and 2023, revived after the September 2023 judgment, and wound back after the appeals succeeded. The procedural history of each matter is now part of its defence. Orders of transfer, revival and re-transfer all matter, and so does what happened to bail, to seized property and to recorded evidence at each step.

None of this is an amnesty. Conduct outside NAB's jurisdiction can still be prosecuted under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 or the tax laws, and money-laundering charges under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 remain available where a predicate offence can be made out. The forum changes; the exposure often does not.

What this means for you

Confirm, on the record, which court or agency currently seizes your matter — do not rely on what was true a year ago. Obtain certified copies of every transfer, revival and re-transfer order; the sequence may found objections on jurisdiction, double jeopardy or delay. Check whether bail orders and property attachments made in the accountability jurisdiction survived the move, and regularise them at the new forum if they did not. If the allegation is in substance a tax matter, raise the exclusion at the first opportunity rather than saving it for trial. Preserve the complete record of any evidence taken before the accountability court, since its admissibility at a successor forum will be contested. And treat the restored amendments as settled only provisionally: review petitions and connected challenges may remain pending [status — TO BE VERIFIED BY REVIEWING LAWYER], and a matter transferred today should be defended in a way that survives another change in the law.