• Court office deems it a matter for FCC, not SC
• IHC disposes of contempt pleas after power of attorney documents signed
• Defence gets two weeks to begin arguments in conviction appeals
• Registrar’s objections on pleas challenging Imran’s solitary confinement removed
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday returned a set of petitions filed on behalf of PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Imran, challenging the Islamabad High Court’s order refusing to suspend their sentences in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case.
The SC office returned the two separate petitions 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 Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) under Section 32-A of the ordinance.
It also pointed out that the grounds on which the IHC had passed the impugned order had not been placed on record. Consequently, the criminal petitions for leave to appeal were returned to the advocate-on-record as not entertainable.
However, the petitions argued that Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that an appeal to the FCC lies only where expressly provided by law.
While Section 32-A of the NAO provides for a second appeal to the FCC against a decision of the high court under Section 32 of the ordinance, the law does not expressly provide an appeal against an order passed on a bail application under Section 9(b) of the NAO, read with Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), or against an order passed on an application seeking suspension of sentence, even if such an application is filed in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the NAO.
The petitions maintained that, in the absence of a specific statutory remedy under the NAO, the impugned order was assailable before the SC under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. They sought leave to appeal against the IHC’s April 30, 2026 order refusing to suspend the sentences awarded by the trial court on Jan 17, 2025.
Soon after the petitions were returned, interim PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan told reporters that the doors of the
SC should never be closed in the interest of justice, recalling that the court had entertained similar matters arising from interim orders of the high court.
He urged the chief justice to hear the matter in chambers immediately.
Contempt petitions dismissed
Meanwhile, the IHC dismissed contempt petitions filed by Imran Khan and 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 £190m graft reference.
An accountability court in Islamabad had sentenced the couple to 14 and 7 years in prison, respectively, on Jan 17, 2025 in the Al-Qadir Trust case.
A division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif heard the appeals against the terms.
Barrister Salman Safdar, Salman Akram Raja and other defence team members appeared before the court. The PTI founder’s sister, Aleema Khan, and several party leaders were also present.
At the outset, the bench expressed displeasure when the defence counsel approached the rostrum together. The CJ directed them to return to seats, stating that the court would not be influenced this way.
Admitting that the jail authorities had provided powers of attorney, Barrister Safdar said 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 at the previous hearing, the defence had misled the court by stating that the powers of attorney was 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 after the signing of the powers of attorney, the contempt pleas 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 NAB prosecutor to advance arguments.
When the court indicated that the NAB prosecutor should begin submissions, Barrister Gohar and Advocate Latif Khosa requested a two-week adjournment.
‘Solitary confinement’
A separate IHC bench removed the registrar office’s objections to petitions challenging the alleged solitary confinement of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, 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 her brother and by Bushra Bibi’s daughter Mubashara Maneka. Barrister Safdar and Akram Raja appeared on their behalf.
At the outset, Mr Safdar argued that the registrar had objected on the ground that the petitioners were not aggrieved parties. He maintained both Aleema Khan and Mubashara Maneka, being relatives, 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,” Mr 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 judgement confirming the petitioner’s status as the prisoner’s wife.
Mr 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.
Following arguments from both sides, Justice Soomro ordered that the registrar office 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 Mr Safdar, who sought an early hearing due to proceedings in another matter, the court adjourned further hearing of the petitions until Tuesday.
Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2026