ISLAMABAD: Al-Qadir Case convict Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, have challenged the Supreme Court registrar’s decision to return their petitions against the Islamabad High Court’s refusal to suspend their sentences in the £190 million corruption case.

The couple filed a chamber appeal on Monday through their lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar. They asked the Supreme Court to set aside the registrar’s June 29 decision and hear their petitions on merit.

An accountability court convicted Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi in January 2025 in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case. The court found them guilty of securing billions of rupees and hundreds of kanals of land from a real estate developer in exchange for legalising Rs50 billion returned to Pakistan by the United Kingdom during the PTI government.

The court sentenced Imran Khan to 14 years in prison. It sentenced Bushra Bibi to seven years.

KP Assembly: Speaker sends controversial privileges law to committee for review

Soon after the verdict, the couple challenged their convictions in the Islamabad High Court. They also requested the suspension of their sentences while the court heard their appeals.

The Islamabad High Court rejected the suspension pleas in May 2025. The court ruled that the applications had become ineffective because the main appeals were already scheduled for hearing.

Last week, the high court granted a final adjournment to Imran Khan’s lawyer, Sardar Latif Khosa. The court warned that it would not allow any further delays.

The Supreme Court registrar’s office later returned the couple’s petitions. It said the Islamabad High Court had issued the disputed order under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Therefore, the registrar said the Federal Constitutional Court had jurisdiction under Section 32-A of the law.

In their chamber appeal, the couple argued that the registrar exceeded his administrative authority by deciding whether the petitions were maintainable.

They said the registrar could only examine procedural matters, such as filing requirements and technical defects. They argued that only Supreme Court judges could decide legal questions involving constitutional or statutory interpretation.

The appeal also argued that Article 175-A of the Constitution allows appeals to the Federal Constitutional Court only when the law specifically provides that remedy.

According to the petition, Section 32-A of the National Accountability Ordinance allows a second appeal against a final high court judgment. However, it does not provide an appeal against an order refusing to suspend a sentence.

The couple argued that no specific statutory remedy exists for such orders. They maintained that Article 185(3) of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear their challenge.