ISLAMABAD — The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday issued a strict directive to the Advocate General, ordering him to arrange an in-person meeting between incarcerated former Prime Minister Imran Khan, his spouse Bushra Bibi, and their legal team within seven days.
The judicial intervention aims to clear administrative bottlenecks that have prevented the defense team from filing essential appeals against the couple’s conviction in the high-profile £190 million National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference.
Critical Legal Milestones
- High court orders jail authorities to grant defense lawyers immediate client access within one week.
- Barrister Salman Safdar confirms he has been barred from seeing Bushra Bibi since December last year.
- Defense states that zero communication with Imran Khan has left them without a signed power of attorney (vakalatnama).
- IHC Chief Justice warns that blocking access to legal counsel compromises the entire system of justice.
- The division bench adjourns further appellate proceedings until signed authorization papers are secured.
Our October 2025 petition is being heard for the first time today, June 18, 2026. Notices have been issued, while Imran Khan’s meetings with family and lawyers remain irregular.” pic.twitter.com/haev8MeRMM
— Ihtisham Ul Haq (@iihtishamm) June 18, 2026
Blocking Power of Attorney Impedes Appellate Process
A two-member division bench, comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif, issued the ruling during a hearing to review the appeals filed against the accountability court’s January 2025 verdict. The legal team representing the PTI founder informed the bench that persistent access restrictions imposed by Adiala Jail administrators had left them completely isolated from their clients.
£190 Million Al-Qadir Trust Case Baseline
• August 5, 2023: Imran Khan initially arrested and imprisoned.
• January 17, 2025: Accountability court sentences Imran to 14 years and Bushra to 7 years.
• Present Status: Appeals stalled due to missing authorization (Vakalatnama) signatures.
Barrister Salman Safdar argued that the lack of direct communication made it impossible to acquire formal instructions or execute the standard vakalatnama required to legally pursue the appeals. He contended that the state’s continued refusal to allow routine prison consultations appeared intentionally timed to let the statutory limitation windows expire, potentially rendering their petitions legally void.
Judicial Warning to State Prosecution
Chief Justice Dogar expressed strong dissatisfaction with the absence of the Advocate General, emphasizing that the state’s law officer is directly responsible for facilitating legally mandated prisoner-counsel access. The court pushed back against arguments from the anti-graft watchdog, which claimed the defense’s sentence-suspension pleas were no longer maintainable.
The high-profile reference centers on allegations that the couple acquired financial kickbacks and hundreds of kanals of land from Bahria Town Ltd in exchange for facilitating the return of £190 million (approximately Rs 50 billion) seized by the United Kingdom during the previous PTI administration. By halting formal proceedings, the high court has shifted the burden back to the state to prove its commitment to a transparent trial before the multi-year sentences are reviewed on merit.
