ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Imran Khan and spouse Bushra Bibi challenged their conviction in the £190 million corruption case before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday.

The appellants asked the court to set aside their conviction and 14-year and seven-year sentences, respectively, awarded by an accountability court earlier this month, emphasising the ruling lacked credible evidence and suffered from procedural lapses.

The identical appeals pointed to the UK Court of Appeal`s judgement dated Nov 26, 2021 and clarified that the funds at the centre of the controversywere neither proceeds of crime nor linked to any illegal activity.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) of the UK had agreed to a £190m settlement with property tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain, specifying that the funds would be transferred to Pakistan Supreme Court`s account as part of a legal framework, they stated.

Mr Khan`s appeal accuses NAB of withholding critical evidence and failing to present witnesses from the NCA or relevant documents to substantiate its claims. His legal team pointed to the NAB`s earlier closure of the case in 2020, following the NCA`s settlement agreement, and argued that the reopening of investigation in 2023 was done in bad faith and for political reasons.

The appeal also contested the validityof a purported confidentiality deed presented by the prosecution. Mr Khan`s lawyers argued that the document was unverified, with no forensic analysis conducted to determine its authenticity.

They added that the document was merely procedural, with no evidence linking it to any criminal activity.

Mr Khan`s lawyers emphasised that no personal financial gain had been established. They said that the funds deposited in the account of Al-Qadir University Trust a legally registered trust promoting education for furniture had been wrongly connected to the case.

`The prosecution`s own evidence confirms that no donations or monetary benefits were received personally by Imran Khan or his wife,` the appeal stated.

The defence said the trial court had ignored key evidence and procedural safeguards. `The trial court failed to properly evaluate critical evidence, including testimony from prosecution witnesses and official documents, which directly refute the allegations of misuse of authority,` the appeal read.

Mr Khan accused NAB of pursuing a politically motivated agenda, claiming that the bureau had selectively targeted him while excluding several individuals implicated in the case. `The prosecution deliberately avoided implicating six other key accused individuals, raising serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the investigation, the appeal stated.

Bushra Bibi asserted that there was lack of evidence, highlighting several procedural and investigative flaws.

She contends that case against her is politically motivated and unsupported by substantive evidence.

She argued that the prosecution had failed to establish her alleged role in aiding and abetting her husband or her involvement in the affairs of Al-Q adir University Trust.

GHQ protest, Iddat cases The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) of Rawalpindi dismissed Mr Khan`s plea seeking acquittalin the case related to violent protest outside the GHQ premises erupted after hisarrest on May 9, 2023.

Judge Amjad Ali Shah said the court had already recorded testimonies of 12 out of 18 eyewitnesses.

As per the court order, the acquittal plea under Section 365-K of the CrPC, could not be entertained at this juncture.

Separately, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan of the IHC sent the appeal of Khawar Maneka, the exhusband of Bushra Bibi, against her and Imran Khan`s acquittal in the Iddat case to the chief justice for entrusting the matter to another bench.

Petitioner`s lawyer Zahid Asif Chaudhry has challenged the July 13, 2024 decision of the additional sessions judge who had acquitted the two. The lawyer argued that the acquittal required judicial review due to legal inconsistencies.

During the proceedings, PTI lawyer Shoaib Shaheen raised objection overthejudge,arguingthathe had previously issued an adverse order in the related Sessions Court proceedings. `If a judge hears the case at one stage anditproceedsto the Supreme Court, the same judge cannot oversee it there,` Mr Shaheen contended.

Mr Chaudhry opposed the objections, emphasising that the decision in the main case was delivered by another judge and that Justice Azam Khan`s previous involvement did not warrant a transfer.

Justice Azam Khan acknowledged the concerns,notingthatthe court had previously heard a review petition connected to the matter. To ensure impartiality and fairness,he referredthe case tothe chiefjustice of the Islamabad High Court for the formation of a new bench.

SP summoned IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq summoned the superintendent of Adiala Jail in person in response to Mr Khan`s petition seeking facilities like telephonic interaction with his sons, medical examination by his personal physician, and other appropriate prison facilities.

Faisal Hussain, the counsel for Mr Khan, said jail authorities were denying basic facilities to the former PM.

CJ Farooq noted that in a previous hearing, jail authorities had been directed to clarify rules regarding phone calls and meetings. The authorities responded that a phone call was allowed on Jan 13 on court orders, though WhatsApp was not part of the standard rules.

They also reported that Bushra Bibi had visited twice after the sentencing, with additional meetings occurring on Jan 17, 20, and 23 duringcourtproceedings.

The CJ remarked that meetings during court hearings did not constitute proper visits and emphasised the need for clarity in compliance with court orders.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the authorities` explanation, the CJ summoned the jail superintendent to appear in person with a detailed response. The official was instructed to review the court`s previous orders, particularly the one issued on Jan 23, before the next hearing.