ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has scheduled for hearing on November 10 the appeals filed by PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, against their convictions in the £190 million case.
A division bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice, Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif will hear the appeals, wherein the bench had previously accepted a plea by their counsel, who said he had been denied access to his clients.
In his application, the counsel stated that despite clear IHC orders, meetings are not being arranged with Khan and Bushra Bibi to obtain instructions for pursuing the appeals. It added that Imran’s three sisters are also in custody, so instructions could not be taken from them either.
At the last hearing, lawyer Salman Safdar told the court that he had met Imran on the bench’s directions, but that the situation was different for Bushra Bibi. “My last meeting with Bushra Bibi was in December 2025,” he said. “Not a single meeting has been arranged with her in 10 months. I request that one meeting with my client be arranged,” he said. He also said that a petition regarding the suspension of Bushra Bibi’s sentence is pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. He requested that the appeals be fixed for hearing only after the FCC decides it.
Safdar argued that the hearing of the appeals now would undermine the other proceedings. “Bushra Bibi’s appeal is fixed before the Federal Constitutional Court, so this case should be listed after that,” he said. “If the appeal is heard here, our appeal in the Federal Constitutional Court will become ineffective.”
Safdar said that Senior Advocate Sardar Latif Khosa could not reach the court because of road closures, and that he had brought an application on Khosa’s behalf. He congratulated the court on starting its digital working system, but said that obstacles and containers remained on the roads despite its clear orders. “Despite this court’s clear order, there are obstructions and containers everywhere,” he said.
According to advocate Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry, the relevant IHC office had earlier declined to receive the application, saying that miscellaneous applications were not accepted on the day of a hearing. Lawyers were told to present it in court during the proceedings.
Safdar also questioned the timing of the listing, saying that the temperature outside is very high, and it is strange that this case was fixed at such a time,” he said, adding that he was pointing to the registrar’s office, which should not have scheduled it.
Referring to an earlier order of the bench, he said, “We get relief from the court sometimes and sometimes we do not. When aggrieved, we go in appeal. I am the one affected by an order this court passed. It was summer, sir, perhaps you were angry.”
The chief justice asked whether he would begin arguments that day. Safdar said the earlier order had made him wonder why he had been removed from the case. Justice Dogar asked whether any order had led him to believe the court was biased. “No, no, nothing like that,” Safdar replied.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments