Key Takeaways
- Former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, challenged the Supreme Court registrar’s refusal to entertain their petitions.
- The couple were convicted of corruption in January 2025 and sentenced to 14 years for Imran and seven years for Bushra.
- They argue that the remedy against orders from the Islamabad High Court lies with the Federal Constitutional Court.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, have challenged in the Supreme Court (SC) the registrar’s decision to return their petitions contesting the high court's refusal to suspend their sentences in the Al-Qadir Trust corruption case. The couple were convicted and sentenced in January 2025 for obtaining billions of rupees and land worth hundreds of kanals from a real estate firm, which was identified and returned to Pakistan by the UK during the previous PTI government.
The court found that funds from foreign bank accounts, previously frozen by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), were repatriated to settle Bahria Town's liabilities instead of being added to the national kitty. Imran was sentenced to 14 years in prison for giving a nod to a confidential deed for the illegal transfer of funds to settle Bahria Town's liability, while Bushra received a seven-year sentence.
Following their convictions, the couple challenged their sentences in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and also filed pleas seeking suspension of their sentences. The IHC rejected these pleas in May 2025, declaring them infructuous as the main appeals against the convictions were already fixed for hearing. Last week, the IHC granted a final adjournment to Imran’s counsel Sardar Latif Khosa, warning no further delay would be tolerated.
On Monday, the couple challenged the June 29 decision of the SC registrar's office to return their pleas against the IHC’s April 30 order. The IHC chief justice had emphasized that the best course was an early disposal of the main appeal even as Imran’s lawyer sought sentence suspension. However, the SC registrar’s office returned the two separate petitions for not being entertainable, explaining that since the IHC passed the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, the remedy against such orders lies only before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) under Section 32-A of the NAO.
In response, the couple filed a chamber appeal through their lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar, under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2025. The chamber appeal contended that the registrar’s office was primarily vested with administrative and procedural powers relating to the filing and processing of cases. Such powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements, including scrutiny of form, limitation, and other prescribed defects, and do not extend to adjudication of substantive or justiciable issues.
The couple argued that the determination of maintainability, particularly where it involved interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions, was a judicial function requiring the application of legal reasoning. They maintained that their petitions should have been entertained by the SC registrar’s office as they pertained to the interpretation and application of laws related to their case.
The challenge highlights the ongoing legal battle between Imran Khan and his wife against the convictions in the Al-Qadir Trust case, which has significant implications for accountability and judicial processes in Pakistan.
