Supreme Court adjourns Toshakhana, Cipher and Defamation Cases against Imran indefinitely

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday heard three separate cases concerning former prime minister Imran Khan—the Toshakhana appeal, the cipher case and a defamation matter—and adjourned all proceedings indefinitely.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Hashim Khan Kakar conducted the hearing in a packed courtroom. At the outset, Justice Kakar remarked on the congestion. “The courtroom has limited space. I can feel a shortage of oxygen in this room,” he observed, before directing that the cases be taken up in Courtroom No. 2 and addressing Khan’s counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar.

Leaders of the opposition alliance Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-Ayeen-e-Pakistan, who had been staging a sit-in in Islamabad, attended the proceedings. Among those present were Opposition Leader Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Raja Nasir Abbas, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi, Noor-ul-Haq Qadri and Barrister Ali Zafar. Ahead of the hearing, Afridi met Khan’s sisters to discuss his health and ongoing legal challenges.

During arguments in the Toshakhana appeal, Khan’s counsel Latif Khosa inadvertently cited a Supreme Court judgment that appeared to weaken his own position. The case revolves around whether the PTI founder can contest elections while his Toshakhana matter remains pending.

On December 20, a special court sentenced Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, to 17 years in prison each in the Toshakhana-II case over allegations they unlawfully retained a Bulgari jewellery set gifted by the Saudi crown prince.

Khosa told the bench that although the sentence had been suspended, the final decision in the case had not been delivered. “Because the case had no decision, the elections were blocked, even though the sentence had been suspended,” he argued.

Justice Kakar questioned whether any decision had been issued on the appeal. When informed that it was still pending, the judge remarked that if a sentence is suspended in appeal, there should ordinarily be no obstacle, including in electoral matters. “If a sentence is suspended, will the person remain in jail or be free?” he asked. Khosa replied that the person would be free.

The judge, however, pointed out that the Islamabad High Court had granted only the relief sought—suspension of the sentence—and not of the conviction itself. When Khosa cited a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, Justice Kakar directed him to read paragraph 13 of that ruling, noting that in that case both the sentence and the verdict had been suspended. “Latif Khosa, you have brought a judicial decision against yourself,” the judge remarked, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

Smiling, Justice Kakar added, “It seems your glasses have become weak. We were giving you the floor to listen to the Election Commission of Pakistan. The judicial decision you cited against yourself, we will follow.” He further observed, “Besides, what election is going to happen in a month or two?”

Khosa clarified that the issue concerned PTI intra-party elections. Justice Kakar responded, “We have a living, breathing PTI chairman sitting before us.”

The bench rejected Khosa’s request to meet his client, with Justice Kakar stating that the court could not issue such directions in a criminal matter not fixed before it. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar added that the bench could not pass orders in cases not properly before it. Justice Kakar also cautioned lawyers against making political speeches in court. “Alright, you have made your point; now the tickers will run and the vlogs will be created as well,” he said.

The court issued notice to the Election Commission of Pakistan in the Toshakhana matter and adjourned proceedings indefinitely.

Separately, a government lawyer informed the bench that Punjab authorities had decided to withdraw appeals against bail granted to Khan and Bushra Bibi. The court subsequently dismissed those pleas.

In the cipher case, the bench adjourned proceedings indefinitely after prosecutors stated that no detailed verdict had yet been submitted. In December 2024, a special court under the Official Secrets Act had sentenced Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to 10 years’ imprisonment over a diplomatic document that, according to the Federal Investigation Agency’s charge sheet, was not returned.

The prosecutor general sought time to submit the detailed judgment, and the court granted the request.

The bench also took up a defamation case involving Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Khan. Khan’s counsel argued that the trial should have been conducted by a district and sessions court rather than an additional sessions court, challenging the latter’s jurisdiction.

The court issued notice to Sharif’s counsel, Mustafa Ramday, and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.