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 refusing to entertain their applications for suspension of sentence on merit in the £190m case.
It is learned that the Supreme Court Registrar returned the appeals after raising objections, holding that the appropriate remedy against the IHC order lay with the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
However, counsel for Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, Salman Safdar, has challenged the objection and maintained that the appeals are maintainable in the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
According to the petition, Article 175A, para. 1(a) of the Constitution that an appeal to the FCC is only if 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 contends 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 an application is made in a criminal appeal under Section 32 of the Ordinance.
“Hence, in the absence of any specific statutory appeal under the NAO, 1999, the impugned order may be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution,” the petition said.
The IHC had disposed of the plea for a stay of sentence in early May, noting that since the main appeals had already been set for hearing, there was no reason to separately take up the stay applications.
In his appeal, Imran Khan claims that he developed an eye condition during his imprisonment and had to be moved outside the prison for medical treatment.
He argues that his continued imprisonment despite serious health problems is unjust and claims that prolonged solitary confinement has caused him extraordinary mental suffering.
The petition further alleges that the application for suspension of sentence was deliberately delayed, noting that Imran Khan had been granted bail during the trial after the charges against him were found to be baseless.
It contends that courts have the legal authority to review the merits of the case while deciding requests for a stay of sentence, and maintains that it was error to dismiss the plea without a preliminary evaluation of the evidence.
The appeal also accuses NAB of repeatedly seeking adjournments, delaying the proceedings and denying timely justice to the petitioners.
It further claims 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.
