Al-Qadir Trust case: IHC gives defence two weeks to begin arguments in Imran, Bushra's appeals

The Islamabad High Court has given the defence team in the Al-Qadir Trust case a final two-week deadline to begin arguments in the appeals against the convictions of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi. The court dismissed contempt of court petitions filed by the couple, noting that the necessary powers of attorney had been signed.

“

the court would not be influenced

An accountability court had sentenced Imran Khan to 14 years and Bushra Bibi to seven years in prison on January 17, 2025, in the National Accountability Bureau reference, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. During Monday's hearing, the bench, led by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar, expressed displeasure at the defence lawyers approaching the rostrum together and emphasized that the court would not be influenced.

“

although the jail authorities had now provided powers of attorney relating to the IHC proceedings, the remaining documents were yet to be furnished.

Barrister Salman Safdar, representing the defence, contended that while jail authorities had provided powers of attorney for the high court proceedings, other documents were still pending. The court assured these would be provided. The Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik argued that the defence had previously misled the court regarding the signing of powers of attorney. The bench observed that the contempt petitions were now infructuous.

“

during the previous hearing, the defence had misled the court by stating that the powers of attorney had been signed on June 16, while failing to disclose that the jail superintendent had contacted counsel on June 18 to facilitate the execution of the documents.

As the court turned to the main appeals, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Advocate Latif Khosa requested the two-week adjournment, assuring that arguments would commence. They cited a pending appeal in the Supreme Court challenging an earlier IHC order, arguing that proceeding in the high court would render the Supreme Court appeal ineffective. The chief justice questioned the validity of the powers of attorney and warned that if the defence failed to proceed, the NAB prosecutor would be asked to advance arguments, noting that repeated adjournment requests put unnecessary pressure on the court.

“

if the appellants failed to proceed, the court would ask the NAB prosecutor to advance arguments.