ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday rejected a plea moved by the spouse of incarcerated former premier Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi, seeking suspension of her seven-year sentence in the £190 Al-Qadir Trust case.

Earlier in the day, a two-judge FCC bench consisting of Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi reserved its ruling and directed senior counsel Salman Safdar, who is representing the appellant, to submit written arguments before the court.

The detailed order for dismissal will be issued by the FCC later.

Bushra had moved the FCC in July seeking the suspension of her sentence, with her criminal appeal contending that the appellant, being a woman with a serious medical condition, was entitled to the suspension of her sentence. On Sept 17, Safdar moved an application before the FCC, seeking early hearing of the appeal, citing a rapidly deteriorating ocular condition that threatens the appellant’s remaining eyesight.

Earlier this month, senior members of the PTI’s legal team approached the FCC for early fixation of the criminal appeal. However, no fresh application was filed, and only a verbal request was made for early registration and fixation of the case.

On Wednesday, the court took up Bushra’s criminal appeal, in which she contended that, as a woman and in view of her serious medical condition, she was entitled to the suspension of her sentence, as similar relief was contemplated under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja was also present in the courtroom during the hearing.

Safdar argued that the courts have always maintained a lenient view regarding women. He added that the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) conduct in the past 13 months had been objectionable since it repeatedly sought adjournments and objected to the plea for suspension of the sentence.

Following the conviction, there is now a legal basis for granting bail to the appellant, the counsel argued.

However, the FCC CJ asked the counsel not to delve into the merits of the case at this stage since the matter was concerned with the suspension of the sentence.

Moved under Section 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance read with Article 175F(1)(a) of the Constitution, the criminal appeal pleaded before the FCC that Adiala jail authorities had not complied with the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) directions to facilitate the appellant’s meeting with her counsel.

Her counsel was instead permitted to meet the appellant’s husband, incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan, who disclosed that both he and the appellant were being illegally kept in solitary confinement and were denied access to family, friends, counsel, political party members and each other.

Imran also reportedly told counsel that neither he nor the appellant had been provided with books or television, thereby subjecting them to complete isolation from human contact and depriving them of information about the outside world.

The appeal reiterated that the appellant’s daughters had subsequently confirmed the situation when they met her after her eye surgery on April 17, 2026.

Such treatment amounted to an unauthorised enhancement of sentence, violated the prisoners’ fundamental rights to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution, and warranted the FCC’s immediate intervention, the petition argued.

The appeal regretted that the appellant had been subjected to continuous solitary confinement, which had demonstrably taken a grave toll on her physical and mental health.

In view of her deteriorating medical condition, Bushra should not be subjected to solitary confinement, even if such punishment had been imposed by a court, the petition pleaded.

It added that her “unlawful confinement” was in “blatant disregard of the applicable law and prison rules”.

The petition further said that the appellant’s counsel or her family were not informed of her eye surgery while incarcerated. It added that after the surgery, Bushra’s daughters were permitted to meet her, and at the time, she was in “a visibly alarming and distressed condition”.

“After undergoing such a serious medical procedure, the appellant was shifted back to jail and to date being kept in conditions of isolation, without any dedicated medical supervision, attendant, or nursing care, despite her impaired vision and vulnerable condition,” the petition said.

“Such treatment of a medically compromised prisoner, particularly a woman, is manifestly cruel, inhumane, degrading, and is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of dignity and humane treatment”.

The criminal appeal contended that the prosecution had alleged that the appellant and her husband, through their associate Farhat Shahzadi, had received 240 kanals of land from co-accused Ahmad Ali Riaz Malik for personal gain.

However, the evidence on record established that the entire amount had been deposited into an account maintained at the National Bank of Pakistan in the name of the registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

“The prosecution has thus failed to produce any credible or legally admissible evidence linking the appellant to any personal gain arising out of the alleged transaction,” the appeal argued.

It added that the “material contradictions, coupled with complete absence of substantive proof, expose the inherently flawed nature of the prosecution case and the proceedings conducted thereunder, which alone furnish sufficient grounds for suspension of sentence”.

The appeal contended that NAB selectively prosecuted the appellant and her husband while deliberately excluding six other individuals who were allegedly implicated in the matter.

The petition further said that the core allegations revolved around the Malik Riaz family and others, but they had not been subjected to prosecution.

“This selective and incomplete approach has resulted in a defective and biased investigation, culminating in the unjust framing of charges and subsequent conviction of the appellant,” the appeal contended.

The former first lady was handed the sentence in the case in January last year, and remains imprisoned at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail. The court found Imran and Bushra guilty of giving undue favours to property tycoon Riaz in retrieving his laundered money from the United Kingdom.

Bushra, along with the ex-PM, had initially moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for the suspension of her sentence in July last year. But the high court dismissed their requests in May 2026, observing that their appeals against their convictions had already been fixed for hearing.

Subsequently, the two approached the Supreme Court against the IHC decision, but the SC office returned the petition as being not maintainable, explaining that since the IHC had passed the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, the remedy lay exclusively before the FCC under Section 32-A of the ordinance.

Bushra then moved the FCC on July 30, with her criminal appeal contending that the appellant, being a woman with a serious medical condition, was entitled to the suspension of her sentence, as similar relief was contemplated under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Her latest application for the appeal’s early hearing, which was rejected on Monday, also stated that her rapidly deteriorating ocular condition threatened her remaining eyesight.