The Supreme Court of Pakistan has returned the appeals filed by former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that declined to decide their applications for suspension of sentence on merit in the £190 million reference. The Supreme Court Registrar raised objections, holding that the appropriate remedy against the IHC order lay before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
Counsel Contests Registrar's Objection
Counsel for Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, Salman Safdar, has contested the objection, maintaining that the appeals are maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. According to the petition, Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that an appeal to the FCC lies only where it is expressly provided by law.
The petition states that Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, provides a second appeal to the FCC against a decision of a high court under Section 32 of the ordinance. However, it argues that the NAO does not expressly provide an appeal to the FCC against an order passed on a bail application under Section 9(b) of the NAO read with Section 497 of the CrPC, or against an order on an application for suspension of sentence, even where such an application is filed in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the ordinance.
Legal Basis for Supreme Court Appeal
"Consequently, in the absence of any specific statutory remedy of appeal under the NAO, 1999, the impugned order is assailable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution," the petition states. The IHC had disposed of the sentence suspension pleas in early May, observing that since the principal appeals had already been fixed for hearing, there was no justification for separately taking up the suspension applications.
Health Concerns and Allegations
In his appeal, Imran Khan submits that he developed an eye condition during his imprisonment and had to be shifted outside jail for medical treatment. He argues that his continued incarceration despite serious health issues is unjust and contends that prolonged solitary confinement has caused him exceptional mental distress. The petition further alleges that the application for suspension of sentence was deliberately delayed and notes that Imran Khan had been granted bail during the trial after the allegations against him were found to be without basis.
It argues that courts are legally empowered to examine the merits of a case while deciding applications for suspension of sentence and maintains that dismissing the plea without a preliminary assessment of the evidence was erroneous. The appeal also accuses NAB of repeatedly seeking adjournments, delaying the proceedings and denying the petitioners timely justice. It further alleges that Imran Khan's arrest was unlawful and politically motivated, adding that a higher court had previously ordered his release over the manner of his arrest.
