IHC to hear Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi’s appeals in £190m case on November 10

• A two-member bench will hear the appeals against their convictions in the £190 million case.
• Salman Safdar says he has been unable to meet Bushra Bibi for 10 months despite court orders.
• The defence has sought a hearing after the Federal Constitutional Court decides a petition concerning suspension of her sentence.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has fixed November 10 for hearing appeals filed by PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, against their convictions in the £190 million case.

A division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif will take up the appeals. The bench had previously accepted a plea from their counsel concerning difficulties in obtaining access to his clients.

In an application, the defence said meetings with Khan and Bushra Bibi were not being arranged despite clear court orders, preventing lawyers from obtaining instructions to pursue the appeals. It added that Khan’s three sisters were also in custody, leaving counsel unable to seek instructions through them.

At the previous hearing, lawyer Salman Safdar said he had met Khan following the bench’s directions but remained unable to meet Bushra Bibi. He told the court that their last meeting took place in December 2025 and that no meeting had been arranged in the following 10 months.

Safdar requested access to Bushra Bibi and asked the IHC to hear the appeals after the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) decided a pending petition concerning suspension of her sentence.

He argued that proceeding with the appeals in the high court before the FCC’s decision could render the proceedings before that court ineffective.

The lawyer also informed the bench that Senior Advocate Sardar Latif Khosa had been unable to reach the court because of road closures. Safdar said he had brought an application on Khosa’s behalf.

According to Advocate Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry, the relevant IHC office had earlier declined to receive the application, explaining that miscellaneous applications were not accepted on the day of a hearing. The lawyers were advised to submit it directly to the bench during proceedings.

Safdar welcomed the introduction of the court’s digital working system but raised concerns about roadblocks and containers that, he said, remained in place despite the court’s clear directions.

He also questioned the timing of the hearing, referring to the high temperature outside, and said his objection concerned the registrar’s office for scheduling the case at that time.

Referring to an earlier bench order, Safdar said litigants sometimes received relief and sometimes pursued appeals when dissatisfied. He told the court that an earlier order had affected him and left him wondering why he had been removed from the case, adding that it had been summer and suggesting the court might have been angry.

Chief Justice Dogar asked whether Safdar would begin his arguments that day. When the lawyer again referred to the earlier order, the chief justice asked whether any order had led him to believe the court was biased. Safdar replied that this was not his position.