NAB fine remains payable despite jail

LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that a person convicted in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case remains liable to pay a fine even 20 years later, holding that serving a prison term for non-payment does not extinguish the outstanding financial obligation.

A division bench comprising LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Justice Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz issued a 15-page judgment while dismissing an application filed by Mehr Muhammad Baqar seeking to stop the recovery of a Rs2 million fine.

The bench held that the six-year limitation period for recovery of fines did not apply to NAB cases, as the special law governing accountability proceedings took precedence in recovering penalties.

It observed that even after serving one year in prison for failing to pay the fine, a convict could not claim exemption from the financial liability. Under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 the amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the judgment said.

The court further held that recovering the fine could not be treated as double punishment, adding that the legal obligation to recover fines in corruption cases remained enforceable despite the passage of time.

The bench directed the relevant authorities to complete proceedings for recovery of the Rs2 million fine within three months.

In a separate case, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) disposed of a constitutional petition challenging the National Accountability Bureau (Amendment) Ordinance 2024, which extended the period of physical remand in NAB custody from 14 days to 40 days.

Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas issued the written judgment, holding that the ordinance had lapsed by operation of law and that no live controversy remained before the court regarding the expired legislation.

The ordinance was promulgated by the acting president on May 27, 2024, but was neither extended by parliament nor converted into an Act of Parliament.

The court observed that once the ordinance had expired, it was unnecessary to express an opinion on its constitutional validity. It also noted that the petitioner had failed to establish that any proceedings or punishment had been imposed against him under the ordinance.

The judgment stated that courts could not issue anticipatory rulings to prevent the enactment of possible future laws. Consequently, the IHC disposed of the constitutional petition as having become ineffective following the ordinance's expiry.

The LHC has also previously disposed of a similar petition after the expiry of the NAB ordinance, according to the information provided.