An Islamabad accountability court on Monday yet again postponed its verdict — expected today — in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust corruption reference against ex-premier Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi due to the unavailability of a judge.
Imran and Bushra were indicted in the case on February 27, shortly after the general elections. The case alleges that Imran and Bushra obtained billions of rupees and land worth hundreds of kanals from Bahria Town Ltd for legalising Rs50 billion that was identified and returned to the country by the United Kingdom during the previous PTI government.
Yesterday, amid rumours about the verdict being deferred, Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry, one of the lawyers representing Imran and Bushra, stated that there had been no confirmation that the verdict had been postponed.
The decision could not be pronounced today because Judge Nasir Javed Rana was on leave.
This is the second time the verdict for this case has been postponed. On December 18, the court reserved its verdict after the defence wrapped its reasoning, saying the verdict would be announced on Dec 23.
Then while presiding over the hearing on Dec 23, Judge Rana postponed the hearing till Jan 6 owing to the court going on winter vacation from Dec 24 to Jan 1.
In December 2023, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had filed a corruption reference against Imran and seven others, including his wife, in connection with the Al-Qadir University Trust.
The reference filed by NAB alleged that Imran, who is currently in jail, played a “pivotal role in the illicit transfer of funds meant for the state of Pakistan into an account designated for the payment of land by Bahria Town, Karachi”.
It also claimed that despite being given multiple opportunities to justify and provide information, the accused deliberately, with mala fide intention, refused to give information on one pretext or another.
Property tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain and his son Ahmed Ali Riaz, Mirza Shehzad Akbar, and Zulfi Bukhari are also among the suspects in this reference, but instead of joining the investigation and subsequent court proceedings, they absconded and were subsequently declared proclaimed offenders (PO).
Farhat Shahzadi, a close friend of Imran’s spouse, and Ziaul Mustafa Nasim, a legal expert for the PTI government’s Assets Recovery Unit, were also declared POs. Subsequently, the properties of all six accused had been frozen.
While testifying before the accountability court on December 10 last year, Imran termed the corruption charges against him “politically motivated” orchestrated by his opponents allegedly with the support of state institutions.
“My political rivals have weaponised institutions to crush dissent and curb democracy,” he had said.
The reference said the “accused […] were given multiple opportunities to justify and provide information, but they deliberately, with mala fide intention, refused to provide the information on one or the other pretext.
“Furthermore, it is established through their responses that they have nothing in their defence to rebut the above-mentioned allegations. Thus, they all have committed an offence” under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).
It added that the investigation proceedings and findings so far “established that accused persons in connivance with each other have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices” as defined under the NAO.
The reference said Imran played a “pivotal role” in the illicit transfer of funds which were meant for the state which ultimately benefited Riaz.
Akbar, a former special assistant to the premier and Asset Recovery Unit chief, played a “crucial role” in the “illegal design of the funds” which were meant for the state, the reference said.
Malik, the reference said, had “actively aided, abetted and assisted and acted in conspiracy” with the other respondents for the diversion of funds earmarked for the state.
Bushra Bibi and Shahzadi also played a “significant” and “crucial” role in the “illegal activities”, the latter also a “frontwoman” for Imran and his wife, it said.
The reference said that it was “just and proper” to proceed against the eight suspects as there was “sufficient incriminating evidence” available to justify the reference.
It pleaded that the eight suspects be tried and punished under the law by the court or any other to which the reference was entrusted.
