Verdict reserved in £190m case against Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi

18 December, 2024

Accountability Court Judge Nasir Javed Rana presided over the hearing inside the Adiala Jail on Tuesday as Mr Khan and his spouse appeared before the court.

The prosecution, represented by NAB’s lawyer Amjad Pervaiz, shed light on developments in the case and allegations against Mr Khan and his associates.

In its reference against Mr Khan, the NAB alleged that the former prime minister’s cabinet approved a confidential deed in 2019 to give £190m — seized by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) and returned to Pakistan — back to the real estate tycoon Malik Riaz.

The case alleged that the former prime minister and his wife, Ms Bushra, in return, got billions of rupees and land worth hundreds of kanals from Mr Riaz’s Bahria Town for “legalising” the money.

Mr Pervaiz, NAB’s counsel, stated that the deed related to the recovery of £190 million was signed on November 6, 2019.

The first instalment of the funds was deposited into the Supreme Court’s account — to pay the hefty fine imposed by the apex court on Bahria Town — on November 29, 2019. Approval for the deed was sought from the federal cabinet later, on December 3, 2019.

Mr Pervaiz argued the cabinet was not informed that the first instalment had already reached Pakistan.

The deed was dispatched to the NCA before receiving cabinet approval, raising questions about procedural violations.

The accountability watchdog highlighted breaches of the Rules of Business 1973, arguing that any matter must be circulated seven days in advance before being tabled in the cabinet.

“What was the urgency that the matter was not circulated in time?” questioned the NAB counsel.

The recovered money was transferred into the Supreme Court’s account instead of the federal government’s, which was “improper”.

The NAB lawyer emphasised that no law prevents the deed between the NCA and Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) — set up by former PM Khan to bring looted money from foreign countries back to Pakistan — from being made public.

Under the NAB law, any donation or grant received by a public officeholder becomes government property.

The anti-corruption watchdog alleged Mr Riaz’s son transferred 240 kanals of land to Farah Shahzadi, a close friend of Ms Bushra, while Zulfi Bukhari, an aide of Mr Khan, received land under a trust, which, NAB argued, did not exist at the time of money transfer.

The prosecution further alleged that a trust was created only after the adjustment of the 190 million pou­nds, raising doubts about its legitimacy and purpose.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) asked the Adiala Jail authorities why Mr Khan was not allowed to attend its proceedings through video link.

The commission has booked Mr Khan over alleged contempt and asked the prison authorities to present him in the proceedings.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mr Khan’s lawyer, Faisal Chaudhry, said the jail authorities’ non-cooperation constituted contempt of the ECP.

The electoral body had initiated proceedings against Mr Khan in August 2022 over alleged contempt of ECP and the chief election commissioner during media talks and interviews.

Mr Chaudhry said that at the previous hearing, the commission had ordered the PTI founder to appear through video link.

At this point, the head of the three-member ECP bench, Nisar Ahmed Durrani, inquired whether arran­gements were made for Mr Khan’s virtual appearance.

In response, ECP officials said arrangements were in place from their side. However, the video link has not been activated from the jail despite the fact that their staff was deputed for this purpose.

Mr Chaudhry said his client would not be allowed to appear virtually as there was an “unannounced ban” on displaying his picture or airing statements.

If jail authorities do not allow Mr Khan’s virtual appearance, he should be summoned in person, Mr Chaudhry argued.

The ECP lawyer expressed the possibility of a technical problem and said the non-appearance “does not seem deliberate”. He added that evidence cannot be recorded in the absence of the accused.

Later, the ECP sought a response from jail authorities and adjourned the hearing till January 15.