SC returns Imran, Bushra appeals in £190m case over jurisdiction objection

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has returned appeals filed by former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that declined to decide their applications for suspension of sentence on merits in the £190 million corruption case, citing a jurisdictional objection.

According to court sources, the Supreme Court Registrar's Office raised objections to the appeals, holding that the appropriate legal remedy against the impugned IHC order lies before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) rather than the Supreme Court.

However, counsel for the petitioners, Salman Safdar, has contested the objection, maintaining that the appeals are maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. He has requested the apex court to overrule the Registrar's objections and hear the matter on merits.

In the petitions, the appellants argue that Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution permits an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court only where such a right has been expressly provided by law.

The petitions state that Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, allows a second appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court only against a decision of a high court passed under Section 32 of the ordinance.

However, the petitions contend that the ordinance does not expressly provide an appeal to the FCC against orders passed on bail applications under Section 9(b) of the NAO read with Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), or against orders relating to suspension of sentence, even when such applications arise during criminal appeals under Section 32 of the ordinance.

"In the absence of any specific statutory remedy under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the impugned order is assailable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution," the petitions maintain.

The Islamabad High Court had disposed of the sentence suspension applications in early May after observing that the principal appeals against conviction had already been fixed for hearing, making separate adjudication of the suspension pleas unnecessary.

In his appeal, Imran Khan submits that he developed an eye ailment during his imprisonment and was shifted outside jail to receive medical treatment. He further argues that his continued incarceration despite health concerns is unjust and claims that prolonged solitary confinement has caused him severe mental distress.

The petitions also allege that the applications for suspension of sentence were deliberately delayed and note that Imran Khan had earlier been granted bail during the trial after the allegations against him were found to lack sufficient basis.

The appellants argue that courts are legally empowered to examine the merits of a case while deciding applications for suspension of sentence and contend that dismissing their pleas without conducting a preliminary assessment of the available evidence was legally flawed.

The petitions further accuse the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of repeatedly seeking adjournments, thereby delaying proceedings and depriving the petitioners of timely justice.

They also maintain that Imran Khan's arrest was unlawful and politically motivated, referring to an earlier decision by a superior court that had ordered his release after finding irregularities in the manner of his arrest.

The matter is expected to proceed once the objections raised by the Registrar's Office are decided by the Supreme Court.