ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday levied a fine of Rs100,000 against the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for what the court deemed “delaying tactics” in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case involving former premier Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi.
The hearing was presided over by a division bench consisting of IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif, who were considering appeals filed by Khan and Bibi seeking suspension of their sentences and appeals against their convictions.
NAB initially argued that the appeals were premature, stating they had not yet been formally admitted for a regular hearing. The bureau cited legal precedents, asserting that a “pending appeal” must first be formally admitted before the court can exercise its supervisory powers, including the suspension of a sentence.
The hearing featured contentious exchanges between the prosecution and the defence. Imran Khan’s counsel, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, detailed difficulties in obtaining a power of attorney from his incarcerated client and argued that Khan had been denied access to legal counsel for four months, a violation of constitutional provisions.
Barrister Salman Safdar, also representing the couple, noted the appeals had been scheduled for hearing after a 14-month delay. He also referenced a previous case where IHC Chief Justice Dogar granted relief to a prisoner due to a medical condition, seemingly drawing a parallel to Imran Khan’s reported eye ailment.
Muhammad Rafay, the prosecutor for NAB, countered that the request for sentence suspension was premature. The proceedings were further complicated by the absence of NAB’s special prosecutor, initially attributed to preparations for a decision on the application’s maintainability, and later explained as attendance at “religious rituals,” which drew criticism from the bench.
The IHC Chief Justice noted that the Supreme Court was already reviewing Imran Khan’s health concerns. The bench issued a notice on NAB’s application and adjourned the hearing, directing the anti-graft body to be prepared for the next session, with the defence urging for a swift resolution before upcoming Eid vacations.
The appeals have faced prior procedural challenges, including objections raised by the IHC registrar’s office regarding unsigned pages and missing documentation. These objections were cleared on February 26, paving the way for the March 11 hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the IHC to fine NAB?
The IHC imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on NAB due to what the court considered “delaying tactics” employed during the hearing of appeals related to the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case.
What arguments did Imran Khan’s legal team present?
Imran Khan’s counsel argued that he had been denied access to his client for four months, violating his constitutional right to legal counsel, and that the appeals had been delayed for an unreasonable 14 months.
What was NAB’s response to the defence’s arguments?
NAB argued that the appeals were premature as they had not yet been formally admitted for a regular hearing and that the request for sentence suspension was therefore not maintainable.
As this case continues to unfold, will the IHC prioritize a swift resolution, and how will NAB respond to the court’s concerns regarding procedural delays?
