The £190m case hearing has taken a new legal turn with Barrister Salman Safdar filing formal applications challenging the Islamabad High Court’s order that fixed May 20 as the final deadline for defence arguments.
The challenge was filed just days after IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar described the May 20 date as a “final opportunity” warning against any further delay.
What the Challenge Says
Safdar filed two separate miscellaneous applications on behalf of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi both challenging the IHC’s written order of May 15.
He argued that the direction to conclude arguments in a single final sitting amounts to a denial of a fair opportunity given the circumstances of the Imran Khan court case.
He also renewed complaints about Adiala Jail authorities allegedly failing to facilitate proper meetings with clients arguing that without signed powers of attorney, the defence cannot formally proceed with the main appeals.
The IHC’s Position Final Opportunity, No More Delays
The Islamabad High Court order issued on May 15 was unambiguous. Chief Justice Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif noted that repeated adjournments were unacceptable given the sensitivity of the matter.
The court had observed that at the previous hearing, all parties had been directed to ensure attendance and present arguments yet counsel again sought an adjournment on what the bench described as “weak grounds.”
NAB had opposed every adjournment request. The court sided with NAB’s position and fixed May 20 as the absolute deadline.
The Access Problem Power of Attorney Not Signed
The central practical obstacle cited in the £190m case hearing proceedings is access to clients.
Safdar told the court at the May 7 hearing that he had no instructions from his clients to proceed claiming jail authorities had not facilitated meetings despite court orders. PTI lawyer Fatahullah Barki confirmed the same, stating that client-lawyer meetings had not taken place as directed since the verdict was delivered.
The court had in April specifically ordered Adiala Jail authorities to allow Safdar to meet Imran Khan but the defence says the order was not properly implemented.
What the NAB Reference Alleges
The £190m case hearing at the IHC concerns an appeal against the conviction in the Al-Qadir Trust reference one of the most significant corruption cases brought by NAB against a former Pakistani prime minister.
The core allegation involves the Pakistani government receiving £190 million from the United Kingdom money that had been recovered from corrupt Pakistani businessmen through British courts. NAB alleges the funds were channelled improperly, benefiting Imran Khan and associates through a land grant to the Al-Qadir University Trust rather than being returned to the national treasury.
The Sentences 14 and 7 Years
Accountability Court No. 1 in Islamabad convicted both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi on January 17, 2025.
Imran was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Bushra Bibi received a seven-year term. Both are currently held at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. The Bushra Bibi legal proceedings have run parallel to Imran’s throughout with both filing appeals in the IHC and both facing the same access and procedural complications.
IHC Rejected Sentence Suspension Earlier
Before the current court arguments deadline dispute, the IHC had already rejected Imran and Bushra’s petitions seeking suspension of their sentences.
The court at that stage observed that the main appeals were already fixed for hearing — making suspension applications redundant. The defence had separately alleged that NAB law officers were deliberately seeking unnecessary adjournments and filing baseless applications to prolong detention, describing the conduct as obstructing the course of justice with “mala fide intent.”
What Comes Next May 20 Hearing Pivotal
The Pakistan political case now reaches a critical juncture on May 20. If the defence proceeds with arguments, the IHC can begin substantive consideration of whether the accountability court’s conviction was sound.
If the defence again seeks an adjournment or if the challenge to the deadline succeeds the court will face a decision about whether to proceed in the absence of defence arguments or grant further time against NAB’s wishes. The IHC’s appetite for delay has clearly run out. How that translates into action on May 20 will define the trajectory of this case for months ahead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the Core Allegation in the £190m Case?
The £190m case hearing concerns allegations that £190 million recovered by the United Kingdom from Pakistani businessmen was not properly returned to Pakistan’s national treasury. NAB alleges that the funds were instead used to benefit Imran Khan and associates through a land grant to the Al-Qadir University Trust. The reference argues that a private company owned by a businessman close to Imran received state land worth billions of rupees in exchange for the British funds, constituting corrupt favour in a major abuse of authority.
What Were the Sentences Handed Down?
An accountability court in Islamabad convicted both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi on January 17, 2025. Imran received a 14-year prison term and Bushra Bibi was sentenced to seven years. Both are currently detained at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi. The Bushra Bibi legal proceedings and Imran’s appeals are being heard simultaneously by the same IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif. The IHC previously rejected both petitions seeking suspension of sentences.
What Is Happening in Court Right Now?
The Islamabad High Court order of May 15 fixed May 20 as the final deadline for the defence to present arguments in the main appeals. Counsel Barrister Salman Safdar has now filed applications challenging that order calling the single-sitting deadline unfair given ongoing difficulties accessing clients at Adiala Jail. NAB opposes any further delay. The £190m case hearing on May 20 will determine whether arguments begin substantively or whether the court must decide how to proceed against a defence that has yet to formally engage the main appeals more than a year after the original conviction
