Al-Qadir Trust fraud case: IHC imposes R0.1m fine on NAB for employing ‘delaying tactics’

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) imposed a Rs100,000 fine on the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for using “delaying tactics” in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi.

A division bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif on Wednesday heard the appeals of the couple seeking suspension of their sentences and appeals against their convictions.

Earlier, the NAB submitted an application raising a preliminary jurisdictional objection, arguing that the appellants’ application under Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was premature.

It stated that in view of the foregoing legal submissions, binding judicial precedents, and the express language of Section 426, Cr.P.C., 1898, it is most respectfully prayed that this court may graciously be pleased “to dismiss Crl. Misc. No. 340/2025 being not maintainable in the eye of law, on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 64/2025 has yet not been admitted for regular hearing and therefore does not constitute a pending appeal within the meaning of Section 426, Cr.P.C., 1898.”

READ ALSO: IK files acquittal plea in Al-Qadir Trust scam case

The NAB also requested to declare that in the absence of admission of the criminal appeal for regular hearing, this Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426, Cr.P.C., 1898.

During the hearing, Imran’s legal team raised serious concerns about access to their client and the slow pace of judicial proceedings.

Imran Khan’s counsel, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, informed the Court about obtaining the Power of Attorney from the incarcerated former premier.

He also stated that access to his client had been effectively curtailed for four months, a situation he branded a direct violation of constitutional provisions. He contended, “It is a fundamental right of an accused to have unimpeded access to legal counsel,” and demanded action against the Adiala jail administration for obstructing this right.

Safdar termed it “unfortunate” that the appeals against the convictions were being fixed for hearing after a gap of 14 months.

Ahsan drew a parallel with the recent military tribunal conviction of former spymaster Faiz Hameed and said that the accountability would not be proven with the conviction of Faiz Hameed. True accountability would only be seen if those army officers who usurped the rights of civilians are also dealt with in accordance with the law.

Barrister Safdar also pointed to a precedent set by IHC Chief Justice Dogar himself, noting that a few years ago, the judge had provided relief to a condemned prisoner over an eye infection — a remark seemingly aimed at highlighting Imran’s own reported eye ailment.

On the other hand, NAB’s prosecutor, Muhammad Rafay, attempted to counter the defence’s urgency, arguing that the plea for suspension of sentence was not maintainable as the main appeals against the conviction had not yet been formally admitted for hearing.

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 court inquired about the absence of NAB’s special prosecutor.

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 busy with “religious rituals”, an explanation that drew the bench’s ire.

Justice Dogar remarked that the Supreme Court had already taken cognizance of Imran’s health-related issues, rendering the matter subjudice before the apex court.

Later, the bench imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on the accountability watchdog for its “delaying tactics”.

Meanwhile, the defense team, including Safdar, urged the court for an early disposal of the petition, requesting a decision before the upcoming Eid vacations.

At the conclusion, the bench issued a notice on NAB application and deferred the hearing.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026