Naveed Hayat Malik

Naveed Hayat Malik () is a Pakistani lawyer serving as the Advocate General of Islamabad Capital Territory since May 2026. He is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the founder of Naveed Malik Law Firm (NMLF), an Islamabad-based legal practice. He served as President of the Islamabad District Bar Association (IDBA) from 2017 to 2018 and as President of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) from 2023 to 2024.

Early life and education

Malik was born in Chakwal, a city in the Potohar region of Punjab, Pakistan. He received his early schooling at Divisional Public School, Lahore, and his intermediate education at Islamia Government Science College. He subsequently obtained his Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from Punjab Law College, Rawalpindi, which he attended from September 1994 to September 1996.

Private practice

Malik is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the founder and principal advocate of Naveed Malik Law Firm (NMLF), based in Islamabad, which he established shortly after completing his LLB.

Prior to his appointment as Advocate General, Malik served as counsel for the Superintendent of Adiala Jail in proceedings before the Islamabad High Court concerning the detention conditions of political detainees.

Bar association leadership

Malik's involvement with the Islamabad District Bar Association (IDBA) extended over more than a decade in successive elected offices. He served as Joint Secretary of the IDBA from January 2002 to January 2003, as General Secretary from January 2010 to January 2011, and was elected President for the 2017–2018 term, defeating Ch. Fiaz Ahmad Padana in the January 2017 bar elections.

He was subsequently elected President of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) in elections held on 25 February 2023, forming a seventeen-member cabinet, and served in that capacity until February 2024.

In August 2023, in his capacity as IHCBA President, Malik visited the Urumqi office of Tahotai Law Firm in China, where he participated in professional exchange discussions on the comparative legal structures of Pakistan and China, providing an overview of how advocates progress through different court levels in Pakistan.

Background

The office of Advocate General for the Islamabad Capital Territory was established under President's Order No. 1 of 2015 (Advocate General Terms and Conditions of Service Order, 2015). The Advocate General is appointed by the President of Pakistan, holds office at the pleasure of the President, and is barred from private practice during the tenure of the appointment. The appointment procedure involves the Ministry of Interior formulating a proposal with the names and credentials of candidates, which is forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice for scrutiny, before being recommended by the Prime Minister to the President for final approval.

Selection process

In March 2026, the federal government initiated a search for a new Advocate General for Islamabad following the appointment of the incumbent, Ayaz Shaukat, as the first chairman of the newly established Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA). Shaukat had held the post since July 2023, when he was appointed by President Arif Alvi following the resignation of Barrister Jahangir Khan Jadoon. The SMPRA was established under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Several prominent lawyers were shortlisted for the vacant position, including Malik, Usman G. Rashid Cheema, Qazi Adil Aziz, Chaudhry Haseeb Mohammad, and Syed Mohammad Tayyab. The IHCBA formally forwarded a panel of twelve recommended names — including Malik — to the Ministry of Law and Justice in a letter dated 19 March 2026, addressed to Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar. The recommendation letter, signed by IHCBA President Syed Wajid Ali Shah Gillani, was also addressed to the President, Prime Minister, Chairman of the Senate, and Speaker of the National Assembly.

Appointment

The federal government appointed Naveed Hayat Malik as Advocate General for the Islamabad Capital Territory through a notification issued by the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control on 5 May 2026. The notification stated that the appointment was made under Article 2 of the Advocate General (Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 2015, with the approval of the President of Pakistan, and that Malik would assume charge with effect from the date he took over the office. Copies of the notification were forwarded to the President's Secretariat, the Prime Minister's Office, the Establishment Division, the Finance Division, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the registrars of the Supreme Court and the Islamabad High Court.

Initial appearances

Malik appeared before the Islamabad High Court in his official capacity for the first time on 6 May 2026, in proceedings concerning the detention conditions of Bushra Bibi at Adiala Jail. When the matter was called, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir congratulated Malik on his appointment; Malik responded that he had yet to formally assume charge. He requested a one-day adjournment, arguing that the matter was not urgent, but the petitioner's counsel, Salman Akram Raja, pressed for an urgent hearing and the court summoned the Superintendent of Adiala Jail to appear in person.

On 13 May 2026, in the next hearing of the same matter, Malik represented the government as the Superintendent of Adiala Jail submitted a report opposing routine family meetings on security grounds, citing social media posts attributed to Bushra Bibi's sister Maryam Riaz Wattoo following earlier visits.

On 14 May 2026, Malik presented the government's substantive position before Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, arguing that prison authorities held discretionary powers over inmate facilities and that the petition was not maintainable because an alternative forum existed in the form of the Inspector General of Prisons against orders of the jail superintendent. Malik told the court that "we are bound by the law; there is no king here, everything is being done according to law", maintaining that no meeting could take place without the permission of the jail superintendent. Following arguments from both sides, the court reserved its verdict.