IHC Expresses Anger Over NAB’s Alleged Warrantless Raid
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro expresses displeasure over claims that NAB investigators entered a citizen's residence without a warrant and removed valuables, directing the prosecution to explain its position at the next hearing.
ISLAMABAD, October 12, 2026: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday expressed strong displeasure over allegations that officials of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) entered a citizen’s residence without a warrant, damaged property and removed valuable belongings, including gold.
Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard a petition filed by citizen Muhammad Waseem Malik, who challenged the conduct of NAB investigators and sought judicial intervention over the alleged search and removal of household valuables.
During the proceedings, the court questioned the legal authority under which the investigating officer had entered the petitioner’s residence and taken possession of his belongings.
Justice Soomro observed that the investigating officer had acknowledged visiting the residence and that CCTV footage of the incident was available, according to the account presented during the hearing.
The judge questioned how an investigating officer could enter a private residence without obtaining the necessary authorization and remove household belongings.
“An investigating officer enters a house without a warrant and takes away belongings,” Justice Soomro remarked, expressing concern over the reported conduct.
The judge further questioned the alleged removal of valuable items, including gold, asking whether such actions could be justified under the law.
According to the proceedings, Justice Soomro referred to the investigator’s reported acknowledgment that officials had visited the property but claimed there had been insufficient time to obtain a warrant.
The court sought an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the operation and the legal basis for the officers’ actions.
NAB Prosecutor Responds to Court’s Questions
NAB prosecutor Rafi Maqsood appeared before the court and addressed questions regarding the alleged search.
The prosecutor suggested that search warrants might have been available, although arrest warrants may not have been obtained.
His response left the precise nature and availability of the authorization unresolved during the hearing.
At another stage, the prosecutor stated that no relevant application or record was available and assured the court that he would clarify the matter concerning the investigating officer’s conduct.
He also undertook to satisfy the court regarding any belongings taken from the residence, if established.
Justice Soomro directed the NAB prosecutor to appear fully prepared at the next hearing and provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the actions attributed to the investigating officer.
Petitioner Denies Involvement in NAB Proceedings
Muhammad Waseem Malik maintained in his petition that he was not facing any NAB inquiry, investigation or accountability reference.
He alleged that despite the absence of proceedings against him, an investigating officer had entered his residence and removed valuable possessions.
The petitioner further informed the court that he had previously approached both the NAB chairman and the bureau’s director general seeking action over the incident but had received no satisfactory response.
During the hearing, Justice Soomro asked whether any legal provision prevented a citizen from submitting an application concerning such conduct.
The NAB prosecutor acknowledged that no law prohibited an individual from filing an application.
The court subsequently directed the petitioner to submit a formal application addressed to the NAB chairman.
Court Seeks Clarification on Search Authorization
The proceedings brought into focus questions concerning the powers of accountability investigators, the authorization required for residential searches and the handling of property taken during investigative operations.
Article 14 of Pakistan’s Constitution protects human dignity and recognizes the privacy of the home, subject to law.
The distinction between a search warrant and an arrest warrant remains significant in the proceedings, particularly because the prosecutor suggested that search authorization might have existed while the judge referred to the investigator’s acknowledgment concerning the absence of a warrant.
The court has not yet made a final determination on the legality of the operation or the allegations concerning the removal of valuables.
Justice Soomro directed the NAB prosecutor to return at the next hearing with a comprehensive and properly prepared response addressing the court’s concerns.
The Islamabad High Court subsequently adjourned the matter, leaving the questions surrounding the alleged residential search and handling of the petitioner’s belongings for further examination.
