Imran, Bushra challenge return of SC pleas in Al-Qadir Trust case

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi moved the Supreme Court on Monday against the registrar office’s decision to return their petitions challenging the Islamabad High Court’s refusal to suspend their sentences in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case.

The couple were convicted in January 2025 in the corruption case. According to the verdict cited in the petition, an accountability court found them guilty of receiving billions of rupees and land measuring hundreds of kanals from a real estate firm in return for legalising Rs50 billion that had been identified and sent back to Pakistan by the United Kingdom during the previous PTI government. The ruling had stated that money from foreign bank accounts earlier frozen by the UK’s National Crime Agency was repatriated to settle Bahria Town’s liabilities instead of being deposited in the national exchequer. The court had also held that Imran Khan, while serving as prime minister, approved a confidential deed for the unlawful transfer of funds to clear Bahria Town’s liability.

Imran Khan was sentenced to 14 years in prison, while Bushra Bibi was awarded a seven-year term. Soon after the convictions, both filed appeals in the Islamabad High Court (IHC). They also sought suspension of their sentences, and those pleas were taken up in May 2025. After the couple requested urgent fixation of the suspension applications in April, the IHC in May dismissed those requests as infructuous, saying the main appeals against conviction had already been fixed for hearing. Last week, the high court granted what was described as a final adjournment to Imran Khan’s counsel, Sardar Latif Khosa, and warned that no further delay would be allowed.

Challenge to registrar office decision

The fresh move before the apex court challenges the registrar office’s June 29 decision to return the petitions as non-maintainable. The chamber appeal was filed through Barrister Salman Safdar under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2025.

In the appeal, the petitioners argued that the registrar office only has administrative and procedural authority in relation to the filing and processing of cases. They said those powers are confined to checking matters such as form, limitation and other curable defects, and do not include deciding substantive legal questions.

The chamber appeal stated "Such powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements, including scrutiny of form, limitation, and other prescribed defects, and do not extend to adjudication of substantive or justiciable issues".

The appeal further argued that deciding whether a matter is maintainable, especially where constitutional or statutory interpretation is involved, is a judicial function that requires legal reasoning and consideration of opposing positions. It said this jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court and cannot be exercised by the registrar in an administrative capacity.

Arguments on appellate remedy

The petition also contended that, while returning the pleas, the registrar office did not consider what it described as the effect of Article 175-A of the Constitution, under which high court judgments, decrees, final orders and sentences may be appealed before the Federal Constitutional Court where the law expressly provides for it.

According to the chamber appeal, Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, allows a second appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court against a high court decision under Section 32 after rejection of a first appeal. However, it argued that the ordinance does not specifically provide an appeal against an order on an application seeking suspension of sentence, even if that application arises during an appeal under Section 32.

The chamber appeal said "Consequently, in view of the limited appellate remedy (only second appeal) provided under Section 32A of the NAO, 1999, and in the absence of any specific statutory remedy, the order dismissing the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the CrPC was assailable before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution".

The couple’s challenge relates to the IHC’s April 30 order. During that hearing, the IHC chief justice had observed that early disposal of the main appeal would be the better course, even as Imran Khan’s counsel pressed for suspension of sentence.