The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed jail authorities to obtain and provide signed powers of attorney documents for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in connection with their appeals against conviction in the £190 million case. A two-member bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif heard the appeals on Thursday.
A two-member bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif conducted hearing of the appeals challenging the conviction awarded by an accountability court in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. Barrister Salman Safdar appeared on behalf of the appellants, while NAB Special Prosecutor Javed Arshad and Rafi Maqsood represented the prosecution.
During the hearing, Imran's counsel Barrister Salman Safdar informed the court that despite repeated efforts, he had been unable to meet his client, who remained incarcerated at Rawalpindi's Adiala jail. Consequently, he could neither obtain instructions nor secure a signed vakalatnama (power of attorney) for the appeals. The counsel submitted that jail authorities had consistently denied him access to the former prime minister. He pointed out that the NAB had recently filed an application contending that the petitions seeking suspension of sentence had become infructuous or were no longer maintainable after the main appeals against the conviction had been fixed for hearing.
Safdar argued that without instructions from his client, he was unable to effectively pursue the matter before the court. Referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment, he maintained that the apex court had granted relief in a similar post-conviction case and that both Imran and Bushra were entitled to seek comparable relief. The counsel further informed bench that his last meeting with Bushra had taken place in December last year and that all subsequent access requests had been declined by prison authorities.
IHC CJ Dogar questioned the absence of the advocate general, observing that the law officer was responsible for ensuring that legal counsel were granted access to incarcerated clients whenever required for court proceedings. Safdar suggested that the prosecution had already changed its legal representatives, whereas he remained unable to obtain fresh instructions from his client. “I have no instructions from Imran. He has the right to change his lawyer if he so desires,” the counsel submitted. The IHC Chief Justice recalled that the court had previously intervened to facilitate a meeting between the PTI founder and his lawyers, which had subsequently taken place.
Addressing the counsel, he asked whether he possessed a duly signed vakalatnama (power of attorney) authorising him to pursue the appeals. Safdar replied that he did not have one and clarified that he had been engaged only in connection with the suspension of the sentence petitions. He argued that the jail authorities have denied him access in a manner that appeared aimed at rendering these proceedings time-barred.
Expressing concern over the situation, CJ Dogar remarked that denial of access to legal counsel was unfortunate and could impede the administration of justice. The lawyer said the principal appeals were fixed for hearing for the first time on May 7, but he did not appear because he intended to challenge the earlier order before the Supreme Court. He added that an application had been filed but objections had been raised by the court office.
When the IHC chief justice asked about the nature of those objections and whether they related to a contempt petition, Safdar replied that the powers of attorney had still not been provided because the jail superintendent had not obtained the required signatures. The chief Justice remarked that Safdar had no powers of attorney in the first place and that another lawyer could have sought one.
At this, Safdar maintained that his conduct had been transparent and complained that he had not been allowed to meet his client since November last year. He said no meeting had taken place after that date and referred to another case in which a woman petitioner had approached the Supreme Court after her matter was not heard, following which directions had been issued.
The bench then invited Safdar to begin arguments on the appeals, but he said he had no instructions from his clients yet. He reminded the court that it had earlier ordered that he be allowed to meet them, adding that he had been permitted to meet Imran but not Bushra. He also said jail authorities had not provided him with signed powers of attorney, which were necessary if he wished to approach a higher forum.
Chief Justice Dogar observed that if the appellants intended to move another court, they were entitled to receive the signed documents. Questioning the absence of a representative from the Advocate General's Office, he asked why the powers of attorney had not been signed and handed over.
The NAB prosecutor responded that the issue of powers of attorney did not fall within the bureau's remit, but the chief justice nevertheless instructed the prosecutor to ensure that the documents were signed. The court subsequently directed the AG office to ensure compliance with its order within seven days and instructed that the signed powers of attorney be provided to the former prime minister and ex-first lady's counsel.
