ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has returned appeals filed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that refused to decide their applications for suspension of sentence on merit in the £190 million case.
It is learned that the Registrar of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals after raising objections, holding that the proper remedy against the IHC order lay with the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
However, Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi’s lawyer Salman Safdar has contested the objection, maintaining that appeals can be maintained before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
According to the petition, Article 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution states that an appeal can only be made to the FCC when expressly provided for by law.
The petition asserts that Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) of 1999 provides for a second appeal to the FCC against a decision of a higher court under Section 32 of the ordinance.
However, he argues that the NAO does not expressly provide for 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 when such application is made in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the ordinance.
“Accordingly, in the absence of any specific legal remedy of appeal under the NAO, 1999, the impugned order is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution,” the petition states.
The IHC had decided the grounds for suspension of sentence in early May, observing that since the main appeals had already been fixed for hearing, there was no justification to consider the suspension applications separately.
In his appeal, Imran Khan maintains that he developed an eye condition during his imprisonment and had to be transferred out of prison for medical treatment.
He maintains that his continued incarceration despite his serious health problems is unfair and maintains that the 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 baseless.
He maintains that courts are legally empowered to examine the merits of a case when deciding on applications for suspension of sentence and maintains that dismissing the plea without a preliminary evaluation of the evidence was wrong.
The appeal also accuses the NAB of repeatedly seeking adjournments, delaying proceedings and denying the petitioners timely justice.
He further alleges that Imran Khan’s arrest was illegal and politically motivated, adding that a higher court had earlier ordered his release due to the manner of his arrest.
