- New Section 32A identifies FCC as second appeal forum.
- PTI sources say amendment is Imran Khan-specific legislation.
- £190m case regarded as most serious corruption case against Imran.
ISLAMABAD: A recent amendment to the National Accountability Bureau law has transferred the final appellate jurisdiction in NAB cases from the Supreme Court to the newly established Federal Constitutional Court, a development with far-reaching implications for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, The News reported.
The National Accountability Bureau (Amendment) Act, 2026 inserts a new Section 32A, which identifies the newly established Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) as the forum for second appeals against High Court judgments in NAB cases.
According to the sources, the PTI leadership knows that not only the most consequential £190 million (Al-Qadir Trust) case but also in any other case which falls under the NAB domain will finally go to the Constitutional Court.
The said section reads as: “32A Second Appeal. Any person convicted or the Prosecutor General Accountability, if so directed by the NAB chairman, aggrieved by the decision made by the High Court under section 32, may prefer a second appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court within a period of thirty days.”
The change means that if Imran’s conviction in any NAB reference, including the £190 million case, is upheld by the High Court, his final statutory appeal would not be heard by the Supreme Court but by the Federal Constitutional Court.
The amendment marks one of the first major transfers of appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to the FCC following the constitutional restructuring of Pakistan’s superior judiciary.
PTI sources say the amendment is Imran Khan-specific and is significant because his legal future is closely tied to the outcome of pending accountability proceedings against him. The £190 million case is regarded as the most serious corruption prosecution against the former prime minister, and its eventual fate could determine not only his criminal liability but also his political future.
Although the amendment does not alter the substantive law governing corruption offences or the grounds available to challenge a conviction, it fundamentally provides the Federal Constitutional Court as the final authority in NAB convictions.
Under the previous legal framework, a litigant could challenge a High Court decision before the Supreme Court.
For Imran, however, the immediate consequence is clear. If the High Court upholds any conviction or does otherwise in a NAB case, including the £190 million reference, his final legal battle will no longer be fought before the Supreme Court but before the Federal Constitutional Court.
Given the political significance of the pending NAB cases against the PTI founder, the amendment is likely to shape not only the future course of accountability litigation but also the broader political landscape in the months and years ahead.
