ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed contempt of court petitions filed by PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, after observing that the powers of attorney required to pursue their appeals had been signed, while granting the defence a final two-week adjournment to commence arguments in the appeals against their conviction in the £190 million graft reference.

An accountability court in Islamabad had sentenced Imran and Bushra to 14 and seven years in prison, respectively, on Jan 17, 2025 in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case.

On Monday, an IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif heard the appeals against the couple’s sentences.

Barrister Salman Safdar, Salman Akram Raja and other members of the defence team appeared before the court. The PTI founder’s sister, Aleema Khan, and several party leaders were also present during the proceedings.

At the outset, the bench expressed displeasure when members of the defence team approached the rostrum together. Directing the lawyers to return to their seats, the chief justice remarked that the court would not be influenced and noted that signed powers of attorney had already been received.

Barrister Safdar contended that although the jail authorities had now provided powers of attorney relating to the IHC proceedings, the remaining documents were yet to be furnished. The chief justice responded that those documents would also be provided.

Islamabad Advocate General Naveed Malik argued that 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.

The bench observed that since the powers of attorney had now been signed, the contempt petitions had become infructuous.

The court then turned to the hearing of the main appeals and directed the defence to commence arguments. Justice Dogar warned that if the appellants failed to proceed, the court would ask the NAB prosecutor to advance arguments.

Barrister Safdar then informed the bench that an appeal challenging an earlier IHC order had been filed before the Supreme Court and sought additional time, arguing that commencing arguments before the high court would render the pending appeal ineffective.

When the court indicated that the NAB prosecutor should begin submissions, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Advocate Latif Khosa requested a two-week adjournment, assuring the bench that arguments would commence on the next date of hearing.

The chief justice questioned whether the senior lawyers possessed valid powers of attorney in the appeals and remarked that repeated requests for adjournments amounted to unnecessary pressure on the court.

Khosa requested two weeks to personally meet the PTI founder before the hearing. Accepting the request, the bench recorded his undertaking that the defence would begin arguments after the adjournment and fixed the appeals for hearing for two weeks later.

Imran — imprisoned since Aug 5, 2023, for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts — is serving a 14-year sentence at Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail in the £190m case.

The case alleges that the couple obtained billions of rupees and hundreds of kanals of land from Bahria Town Ltd to legalise Rs50 billion identified and returned to the country by the United Kingdom during the PTI government.

Imran and Bushra had challenged their convictions in the Al-Qadir Trust case before the IHC soon after they were sentenced.

They had also sought suspension of their sentences, which was rejected by the IHC in May 2026 — followed by allegations from Imran’s party and family of delay in the fixation of cases.

IHC removes objections to pleas challenging ‘solitary confinement’

Meanwhile, a separate bench of the IHC removed the registrar office’s (RO) objections to petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement of Imran and Bushra, directing that both petitions be numbered while deferring the question of maintainability to the judicial side.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro heard the petitions filed by Aleema Khan on behalf of the PTI founder and by Bushra’s daughter Mubashara Khawar Maneka. Barrister Safdar and Raja appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

At the outset, Safdar argued that the registrar had objected on the ground that the petitioners were not aggrieved parties. He maintained that Aleema, being Imran’s sister, and Mubashara, being Bushra’s daughter, were competent to approach the court.

“We have been trying to ascertain the position for the last four years. We only wish to reach the court without the registrar office’s objections,” Safdar stressed.

The counsel informed the court that he had previously raised the issue of solitary confinement during appeal proceedings, but the IHC chief justice had advised him to approach the relevant forum. Referring to legal precedents, he cited the Begum Shamim Afridi case, in which the wife of a prisoner had challenged solitary confinement.

At this, Justice Soomro asked the counsel to identify the relevant paragraph of the judgment confirming the petitioner’s status as the prisoner’s wife. Safdar then read out the relevant portion of the decision before the court.

The counsel argued that solitary confinement was the harshest form of punishment and that even exceptional prisoners could only be kept in such confinement for a maximum of 14 days under the law.

He alleged that both Imran and Bushra had been kept in solitary confinement for the last seven months, claiming that they had been denied newspapers, television and family meetings.

“I have not met Bushra Bibi since December,” Safdar told the court, adding that he had met the PTI founder only twice on the directions of the chief justice of Pakistan and the IHC top judge.

He further alleged that the couple was being subjected to inhumane treatment and cited previous cases in which family members, including incumbent Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, had approached courts on behalf of detained relatives.

During the hearing, Justice Soomro questioned the absence of the chief justice’s order referred to by the counsel. Safdar responded that no copy of the order was available and complained of difficulties in obtaining certified copies.

The court also summoned NAB Prosecutor Rafay Maqsood to the rostrum.

The NAB prosecutor contended that after meeting the PTI founder, Safdar had not informed the court that his client was being kept in solitary confinement. Instead, he had only argued that he had been instructed to address suspension of sentence applications rather than the appeals.

Safdar responded that a miscellaneous application raising the issue of solitary confinement had been filed in writing during the appeal proceedings.

The prosecutor further argued that the miscellaneous application had already been rejected and that the matter, if any, could only be pursued before the Supreme Court rather than through a constitutional petition under Article 199.

Safdar disputed the claim, maintaining that the application had not been rejected and asserting that the chief justice’s bench had passed no order on the solitary confinement issue.

Following arguments from both sides, Justice Soomro ordered that the RO objections be removed and directed that both petitions be numbered.

The court observed that the question of maintainability would be examined on the judicial side.

On the request of Safdar, who sought an early hearing due to proceedings in another matter, the court adjourned further hearing of the petitions until Tuesday.

In her plea filed last week, Aleema had described his brother’s detention conditions as unlawful and inhumane.

According to the petition, during a lawyers’ meeting held on April 8, it emerged that Imran had been kept in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day, while his wife, Bushra Bibi, was allegedly confined in isolation for 24 hours a day.

Maneka’s petition contended her mother was being unlawfully kept in solitary confinement, and requested the court to declare it illegal and set it aside.