The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has instructed jail officials to acquire and submit signed powers of attorney for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, concerning their appeals against convictions in the £190 million case.
A two-judge bench, led by IHC Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar along with Justice Muhammad Asif, presided over the appeals hearing on Thursday. Barrister Salman Safdar represented the appellants, while NAB Special Prosecutor Javed Arshad and Rafi Maqsood appeared for the prosecution.
During proceedings, Safdar highlighted that approximately 300 cases were registered against Imran Khan, with lawyers or pleaders appointed for each. He expressed concerns stemming from an April 30 court order and noted NAB’s position that the main appeals should be heard prior to applications seeking sentence suspension. Safdar added that the principal appeals were scheduled for May 7, but he refrained from attending as he intended to challenge the previous order before the Supreme Court. Although an application was filed, objections were raised by the court office.
When Chief Justice Dogar inquired about the nature of these objections and whether they pertained to a contempt petition, Safdar explained that the signed powers of attorney had yet to be provided because the jail superintendent had not secured the necessary signatures. The chief justice responded that Safdar lacked a power of attorney initially and suggested that another lawyer could have obtained one. Safdar maintained his transparency and complained about being denied access to meet his client since November of the previous year. He referred to a precedent involving a female petitioner who approached the Supreme Court after her case was delayed, leading to judicial directions.
The bench invited Safdar to proceed with arguments on the appeals, but he stated he had no instructions from his clients. He reminded the court of its earlier order permitting him to meet the appellants, noting he had been allowed to meet Imran Khan but not Bushra Bibi. Safdar reiterated that the jail authorities had not provided the signed powers of attorney, which were essential for filing appeals in a higher court.
Chief Justice Dogar remarked that if the appellants wished to approach another forum, they had the right to receive the signed documents. Questioning the absence of an Advocate General’s Office representative, he asked why the powers of attorney remained unsigned and undelivered. Safdar also mentioned Bushra Bibi’s eye condition, stressing the need for consultation.
The NAB prosecutor clarified that the power of attorney issue was beyond the bureau’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the chief justice instructed the prosecutor to ensure the documents were signed. Safdar raised concerns about potential delays by jail authorities aimed at missing the appeal filing deadline.
Consequently, the court ordered the Advocate General’s office to comply within seven days and directed that the signed powers of attorney be handed over to the legal counsel of the former prime minister and ex-first lady. The IHC scheduled the hearing of the appeals against their convictions in the £190 million case for the last week of June.
The Al-Qadir Trust case, also known as the £190 million case, involves allegations that in 2019, Imran Khan and others facilitated the transfer of Rs50 billion—equivalent to £190 million at that time—sent by Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) to the Pakistani government during Imran’s prime ministership. The sum relates to assets of a property tycoon seized by the NCA during PTI’s rule. The British agency had previously stated that the amount was to be transferred to Pakistan as part of a civil settlement and did not imply any guilt.
However, the National Accountability Bureau filed a reference in December 2023, followed by formal charges against Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi on February 27, 2024. The charges allege that a settlement with the British crime agency was approved by then-Prime Minister Imran on December 3, 2019, without disclosing details of the confidential agreement.
