ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has referred appeals filed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, challenging an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that refused to rule on their applications for suspension of sentence on merits in the £190 million case.
It is learned that the Supreme Court Registrar returned the appeals after raising objections, finding that the appropriate remedy against the IHC order was before the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
However, Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi’s lawyer Salman Safdar contested this objection, saying the appeals are admissible in the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
According to the petition, Section 175A(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that an appeal to the FCC may be brought only when expressly provided for by law.
The petition states that Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) of 1999 provides for a second appeal to the FCC of a high court decision under Section 32 of the Ordinance.
However, he submits that the NAO does not expressly provide for an appeal to the FCC against an order made on an application for bail 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 an application is filed in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the Ordinance.
“Therefore, in the absence of any specific legal remedy under the NAO, 1999, the impugned order is challengeable before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution,” the petition said.
The IHC had ruled on the applications for suspension of sentence in early May, observing that as the main appeals had already been set for hearing, there was no justification for considering the suspension applications separately.
In his appeal, Imran Khan claims he developed an eye disease during his imprisonment and had to be transferred out of the prison for medical treatment.
He claims that his continued detention despite serious health problems is unfair and that his prolonged solitary confinement has caused him exceptional mental distress.
The motion further alleges that the application for suspension of sentence was deliberately delayed and notes that Imran Khan was released on bail during the trial after the allegations against him were found to be baseless.
He argues that courts are legally empowered to consider the merits of a case when deciding requests for a suspended sentence and contends that rejecting 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 applicants 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.
