• Imran’s lawyer informs IHC about difficulties he faced in obtaining his client’s power of attorney
• NAB prosecutor urges court to decide on maintainability of acquittal pleas
• Bench issues notice on anti-graft body’s application
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for employing “delaying tactics” in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case against former premier Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi.
The development came as a division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif presided over the hearing of pleas filed by the couple seeking suspension of their sentences and appeals against their convictions.
Prior to the hearing, NAB, in a sharp legal response submitted to the court, raised a preliminary jurisdictional objection, arguing that the appellants’ application under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was premature. It contended that the appeals filed by Mr Khan and his wife had not yet been formally admitted for regular hearing by the high court.
Citing legal precedents, NAB maintained that the phrase “pending appeal” in Section 426 of the CrPC had been authoritatively construed to mean an appeal formally admitted for regular hearing. Therefore, until such admission, the court’s supervisory and interlocutory powers, including the power to suspend a sentence, did not stand activated, it said.
However, Wednesday’s hearing was marked by sharp exchanges between the defence and prosecution, with Mr Khan’s legal team raising serious concerns about access to their client and the slow pace of judicial proceedings.
The PTI founder’s counsel, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, opened his arguments by detailing the difficulties he faced in obtaining the power of attorney from the incarcerated former premier.
He informed the court that access to his client had effectively been curtailed for four months, which he described as a direct violation of constitutional provisions.
In a broader critique of the country’s accountability process, Mr Ahsan drew a parallel with the recent military tribunal conviction of former spymaster Faiz Hameed.
“Accountability will not be proven with the conviction of Faiz Hameed. True accountability will only be seen if those army officers who usurped the rights of civilians are also dealt with in accordance with the law,” he said.
His fellow defence counsel Barrister Salman Safdar also referred to a precedent set by IHC Chief Justice Dogar, noting that a few years ago the judge had granted relief to a condemned prisoner suffering from an eye infection, a remark seemingly aimed at highlighting Imran Khan’s reported eye ailment.
On the other hand, NAB prosecutor Muhammad Rafay attempted to counter the defence’s urgency, arguing that the plea for suspension of the sentence was not maintainable as the main appeals against the conviction had not yet been formally admitted for hearing.
Acquittal pleas
He requested the court to first decide on the admissibility of the acquittal pleas before proceeding further. However, the proceedings took a turn when the bench inquired about the absence of NAB’s special prosecutor.
Mr Rafay replied that the special prosecutor was not in attendance because the prosecution wanted a decision on the maintainability application first.
When pressed further, he added that the special prosecutor was engaged in “religious rituals”, an explanation that drew the bench’s ire.
IHC CJ Dogar remarked that the SC had already taken cognisance of Mr Khan’s health-related issues, rendering the matter sub judice before the apex court.
The defence team urged the court to dispose of the petition at the earliest and requested a decision before the Eid holidays.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the bench issued notice on NAB’s application and adjourned the proceedings.
Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2026
