SC returns Imran, Bushra appeals against IHC order in £190m case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has returned appeals filed by former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi against an Islamabad High Court order that did not decide their applications for suspension of sentence on merits in the £190 million case.

The office of the Supreme Court registrar raised objections and returned the appeals on the view that the proper legal remedy against the Islamabad High Court order lay before the Federal Constitutional Court. Their lawyer, Salman Safdar, challenged that objection and argued that the appeals are maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

The petition says Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution allows an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court only where the law expressly provides for it. It says Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, provides a second appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court against a high court decision under Section 32 of the ordinance.

However, the petition argues that the National Accountability Ordinance does not specifically provide an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court against an order passed on a bail application under Section 9(b) of the ordinance read with Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or against an order on an application for suspension of sentence, even if that application is filed in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the ordinance.

The petition states: "Consequently, in the absence of any specific statutory remedy of appeal under the NAO, 1999, the impugned order is assailable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution"

The Islamabad High Court had disposed of the sentence suspension pleas in early May, observing that because the main appeals had already been fixed for hearing, there was no reason to separately take up the applications seeking suspension of sentence.

In his appeal, Imran Khan said he developed an eye condition during imprisonment and had to be taken outside jail for treatment. He also contended that his continued detention despite serious health issues was unjust, and that extended solitary confinement had caused exceptional mental distress.

The petition further alleges that the application for suspension of sentence was deliberately delayed. It also says Imran Khan had been granted bail during the trial after the allegations against him were found to be without basis.

The petition says courts have the legal authority to examine the merits of a case while deciding applications for suspension of sentence, and it argues that dismissing the plea without an initial assessment of the evidence was incorrect. The appeal also accuses the National Accountability Bureau of repeatedly seeking adjournments, which it says delayed proceedings and denied the petitioners timely justice.

The appeal additionally claims that Imran Khan’s arrest was unlawful and politically motivated, and says a higher court had earlier ordered his release over the manner in which he was arrested.