IHC expects Imran’s lawyers to avoid political statements after jail meeting in £190m case
November 10 order directs the Islamabad advocate general to arrange a meeting lasting at least one hour and gives counsel a week to prepare, while expressing an expectation against political discussion and public statements afterwards.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has expressed the expectation that lawyers representing former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, will confine themselves to legal matters and avoid political discussion and public statements after a court-facilitated jail meeting, according to a written order issued in proceedings concerning their £190 million case appeals.
The two-page order, dated November 10, 2026, was issued by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif. It directs the Islamabad advocate general to arrange access to the appellants and requires the court office to prepare the appeal paper books within seven days.
The order was passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2025, titled Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi versus the State and others, and also refers to the appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2025.
Court Sets Out Expectations for Counsel
Addressing the conduct of Sardar Latif Khan Khosa and Barrister Salman Safdar following the meeting, the bench stated:
“This Court, however, expects that after the meeting, both the counsels being very professional counsels, would not speak about the political issues and would confine themselves only to the extent of legal issues and that no statement will be given publically or before media.”
The wording expresses the court’s expectation concerning counsel’s conduct after the meeting. It is distinct from the operative directions requiring arrangements for legal access and preparation of the appeal records.
Meeting Must Last at Least One Hour
The court directed the Islamabad advocate general to make the necessary arrangements for both lawyers to meet the appellant in the present appeal as well as the appellant in the connected appeal.
The meeting must last no less than one hour. Counsel and the advocate general were instructed to coordinate its date and time.
The direction followed the advocate general’s submission that he could facilitate access.
Lawyers Sought Further Time to Prepare
The written order records that, on June 29, 2026, the court had granted a final opportunity to argue the appeal after an undertaking by Khosa.
At the November 10 hearing, however, Khosa submitted that he could not proceed because he had been unable to meet his client. He again undertook to argue the appeal on its merits at the next hearing, subject to a direction facilitating a meeting at Adiala jail.
Safdar separately informed the bench that he had instructions to represent the appellant and argue the appeal, but the limited duration of his previous meeting had prevented him from obtaining adequate instructions to present the case effectively. He also requested additional preparation time.
Accepting counsel’s request in the interest of justice, the bench granted one week to prepare the appeal brief and directed that the matter be relisted thereafter. The supplied order does not specify a calendar date for the next hearing.
The court office was separately instructed to complete the paper books within seven days.
Meeting Subsequently Took Place
Following the order, Safdar and Khosa met Imran and Bushra at Adiala jail on November 11. Safdar said the consultation lasted nearly three hours and that both clients provided detailed legal instructions. This subsequent development means the meeting direction should not be presented as still awaiting implementation.
Background to the Appeals
The appeals challenge convictions in the Al-Qadir Trust case, commonly known as the £190 million reference. An accountability court sentenced Imran to 14 years’ imprisonment and Bushra to seven years on January 17, 2025.
The prosecution case concerned land received from a property developer in exchange for alleged official favours. The couple denied wrongdoing, while PTI maintained that the land was donated for charitable purposes.
The November 10 order concerns legal consultation, preparation and the appeal record. It does not decide the merits of the convictions or grant either appellant release.
