Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi challenge registrar’s refusal to entertain petitions in Al-Qadir trust case

Former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi have moved the Supreme Court against the registrar office’s decision to return their petitions challenging the Islamabad High Court’s refusal to suspend their sentences in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption case. The couple, convicted in January 2025, argue that the registrar overstepped its administrative authority by deciding the maintainability of their pleas.

In a chamber appeal filed under the Supreme Court Rules 2025, the petitioners contend that the registrar’s role is limited to checking procedural requirements and cannot adjudicate substantive legal questions. The appeal asserts that deciding whether a matter is maintainable particularly where constitutional interpretation is involved is a judicial function that belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court and “cannot be exercised by the registrar in an administrative capacity”.

The legal dispute stems from the couple’s earlier appeals against their convictions in the Al-Qadir Trust case. An accountability court had sentenced Imran Khan to 14 years in prison and Bushra Bibi to seven years, finding them guilty of obtaining billions of rupees and land from a real estate firm in return for legalising Rs50 billion repatriated from the UK during the previous PTI government. Following their sentencing, both filed appeals with the Islamabad High Court and separately sought suspension of their sentences. However, in May 2025, the IHC disposed of the suspension pleas as “infructuous”, noting that the main appeals were already fixed for hearing.

The petitioners argue that the registrar’s June 29 decision to return their petitions against the IHC’s April 30 order failed to account for crucial legal provisions, including Article 175-A of the Constitution and Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance, which provide for appellate remedies. The chamber appeal contends that even in the absence of a specific statutory remedy for challenging a suspension order, such matters are “assailable before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution”.

The case has been pending since the couple’s conviction, with their legal team highlighting health concerns during detention. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether the registrar’s return of petitions was legally valid will determine whether the main appeals against the couple’s conviction can proceed on the merits.