A high court in Pakistan approved miscellaneous applications on Thursday seeking an early hearing of the sentence suspension petitions filed by former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in the Al Qadir Trust case.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Azam Khan heard the matter. Barrister Salman Safdar appeared before the court on behalf of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi.
At the outset of the hearing, the court directed lawyers supporting Imran Khan to take their seats.
During the proceedings, PTI lawyers approached the rostrum, prompting a stern response from the Chief Justice, who questioned whether they were attempting to influence the court.
Barrister Safdar informed the bench that there were concerns regarding the health of the former prime minister. He added that he filed applications for an early hearing five times. It is on the fifth attempt that he has been allowed to present the request before the court, he added.
The Chief Justice remarked that the previous applications for early hearing had become ineffective, subsequently approving the miscellaneous applications for hearing on March 11.
What is Al-Qadir Trust case
The Al‑Qadir Trust case, also referred to as the £190 million case, is a corruption case involving the ex-PM and his wife.
Prosecutors allege that while in office, Khan approved a controversial settlement with Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) in which assets valued at £190 million, meant to be transferred to Pakistan’s treasury, were instead routed in a way tied to land and benefits connected with the Al‑Qadir University Trust - a charitable foundation the couple helped establish.
An accountability court later convicted Khan and Bushra Bibi in the case, sentencing him to 14 years in prison and her to seven years on charges of corruption and abuse of authority linked to the trust and related land transactions.
Critics, including Khan’s legal team and supporters, have argued that the case is politically motivated and challenged procedural flaws and lack of clear evidence of personal financial gain.
Comments
See what people are discussing