£190m case: IHC orders Imran, Bushra meeting along with lawyers within 7-day time
Why this matters: local context for readers following news across Pakistan and the region.
ISLAMABAD – The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the advocate general Islamabad to ensure meetings within 7-day time between former prime minister Imran Khan, his wife Bushra Bibi, and their legal team to facilitate legal formalities in appeals against their conviction in the £190 million reference. A IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif heard the appeals against the accountability court’s verdict in the high-profile National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, also known as the Al-Qadir Trust case. During the hearing, defence counsel Barrister Salman Safdar informed the court that despite repeated attempts, he had been unable to meet his client, who remains incarcerated at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. He said the lack of access had prevented him from obtaining instructions or securing a signed vakalatnama required to proceed with the appeals. The lawyer stated that jail authorities had consistently denied meetings with the former prime minister, making it difficult to move forward with the legal process. He also noted that NAB had filed an application arguing that petitions related to suspension of sentences had become ineffective after the main appeals were fixed for hearing. Safdar maintained that without instructions from his client, he could not properly represent the appellants. He further argued that, in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment in a similar matter, the same relief should be extended to Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi. He told the bench that his last meeting with Bushra Bibi took place in December last year, after which no further access had been granted by prison authorities. Chief Justice Dogar questioned the absence of the advocate general Islamabad, observing that it was the responsibility of the law officer to ensure lawyers are granted access to incarcerated clients when required for court proceedings. The bench noted that the court had previously facilitated