IHC gives defence two weeks to start arguments in Imran, Bushra appeals

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed contempt petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi after observing that the powers of attorney required for their appeals had been signed, and gave the defence what it called a final two-week adjournment to begin arguments in the couple’s appeals against conviction in the £190 million reference.

An IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif heard the appeals against the sentences awarded to the couple in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. An accountability court in Islamabad had sentenced Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi on Jan 17, 2025, to 14 years and seven years in prison, respectively.

Barrister Salman Safdar, Salman Akram Raja and other members of the defence team appeared before the court. Imran Khan’s sister Aleema Khan and several PTI leaders also attended the proceedings. At the outset, the bench expressed displeasure when several defence lawyers approached the rostrum together, with the chief justice directing them to return to their seats and observing that the court would not be influenced and that signed powers of attorney had already been received.

Safdar told the bench that while jail authorities had now provided powers of attorney relating to the IHC proceedings, other documents had still not been supplied. The chief justice replied that those papers would also be furnished. Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik argued that at the previous hearing the defence had misled the court by saying the powers of attorney had been signed on June 16, without disclosing that the jail superintendent had contacted counsel on June 18 to facilitate execution of the documents.

The bench then held that the contempt petitions had become infructuous because the powers of attorney had been signed. It proceeded to the main appeals and directed the defence to open arguments. Justice Dogar told counsel that if the appellants did not proceed, the court would ask the NAB prosecutor to present arguments.

Safdar then informed the court that an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court against an earlier IHC order and sought more time, arguing that starting arguments before the high court would make that pending appeal ineffective. When the court indicated that the NAB prosecutor should begin submissions, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Advocate Latif Khosa sought a two-week adjournment and assured the bench that arguments would begin on the next date.

The chief justice questioned whether the senior lawyers held valid powers of attorney in the appeals and remarked that repeated adjournment requests were creating unnecessary pressure on the court. Khosa asked for two weeks to personally meet Imran Khan before the next hearing. The bench accepted the request, recorded his undertaking that the defence would begin arguments after the adjournment, and fixed the appeals for hearing two weeks later.

Imran Khan has been imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, in the Toshakhana case and is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in the £190 million case. The case alleges that the couple obtained billions of rupees and hundreds of kanals of land from Bahria Town Ltd in exchange for legalising Rs50 billion identified and repatriated to Pakistan by the United Kingdom during the PTI government. The couple had challenged their convictions before the IHC soon after sentencing. Their pleas for suspension of sentence were rejected by the IHC in May 2026.

IHC removes registrar objections in solitary confinement pleas

In a separate matter, another IHC bench removed the registrar office’s objections to petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, and directed that both pleas be numbered while leaving the issue of maintainability to be decided on the judicial side.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard the petitions filed by Aleema Khan on behalf of Imran Khan and by Bushra Bibi’s daughter, Mubashara Khawar Maneka. Barrister Safdar and Salman Akram Raja appeared for the petitioners. Safdar argued that the registrar office had objected on the basis that the petitioners were not aggrieved persons, but maintained that Aleema, as Imran Khan’s sister, and Mubashara, as Bushra Bibi’s daughter, were competent to approach the court.

Safdar told the court that the issue had been pursued for years and that the petitioners only wanted to approach the court without registrar objections. He said he had earlier raised the matter of solitary confinement during appeal proceedings, but the IHC chief justice had advised him to approach the appropriate forum. Citing legal precedents, he referred to the Begum Shamim Afridi case, in which a prisoner’s wife had challenged solitary confinement. Justice Soomro asked him to point out the relevant paragraph confirming the petitioner’s status, after which counsel read the relevant portion of the judgment.

Arguing the merits, Safdar said solitary confinement was the harshest form of punishment and that even exceptional prisoners could be kept under such confinement for only 14 days under the law. He alleged that Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi had been held in solitary confinement for the last seven months and had been denied newspapers, television and family meetings.

Safdar told the court "We have been trying to ascertain the position for the last four years. We only wish to reach the court without the registrar office’s objections".

He also said "I have not met Bushra Bibi since December."

Safdar added that he had met the PTI founder only twice on the directions of the chief justice of Pakistan and the IHC chief justice. He further alleged that the couple was being subjected to inhumane treatment, and referred to earlier cases in which family members, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, had approached courts on behalf of detained relatives.

During the hearing, Justice Soomro questioned why the chief justice’s order referred to by counsel was not on record. Safdar replied that no copy of the order was available and complained about difficulties in obtaining certified copies. The court also called NAB Prosecutor Rafay Maqsood to the rostrum.

Maqsood argued that after meeting Imran Khan, Safdar had not informed the court that his client was being held in solitary confinement, and had instead argued only that he had been instructed to address suspension of sentence applications rather than the main appeals. Safdar responded that a miscellaneous application raising the issue had been filed in writing during the appeal proceedings.

The NAB prosecutor further argued that the miscellaneous application had already been rejected and that, if any remedy remained, the matter could be pursued only before the Supreme Court rather than through a constitutional petition under Article 199. Safdar disputed that position, maintaining that the application had not been rejected and that no order had been passed by the chief justice’s bench on the solitary confinement issue.

After hearing both sides, Justice Soomro ordered the removal of registrar objections and directed that the petitions be numbered, while observing that maintainability would be examined by the judicial side. On Safdar’s request for an early date because of proceedings in another case, the court adjourned the matter until Tuesday.

In a plea filed last week, Aleema Khan described her brother’s detention conditions as unlawful and inhumane. According to the petition, during a lawyers’ meeting held on April 8, it emerged that Imran Khan had been kept in solitary confinement.