Court reserves suspended sentence in Iddat Nikkah case

A district and sessions court in Islamabad has deferred its verdict on the plea seeking suspension of prison sentence in the Iddat Nikkah matrimonial dispute involving Pakistan Movement for Justice (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi.

The court announced that the verdict on probation would be announced on June 27 at 3 p.m., while the main hearing in the appeal court had been postponed until July 2.

Judge Majoka of the court presided over the hearing on Tuesday and reiterated his commitment to a lawful decision, saying: “I will decide in accordance with the law.”

The PTI founder and Bushra Bibi were represented by advocate Salman Safdar and advocate Khalid Yousuf Chaudhry, while Zahid Asif Chaudhry appeared on behalf of the plaintiff Khawar Maneka.

Today’s hearing

At the beginning of the hearing, Attorney Safdar began his argument and stated, “I will argue for suspension of sentence within seven minutes and the plaintiff should respond in less time.”

He stressed that the number of hearings – over 15 in three months – was excessive and that they had often been delayed by the complainant and the prosecution, indicating a lack of solid evidence.

Lawyer Asif praised Safdar’s legal expertise.

The accused’s lawyer described Bushra Bibi’s situation in detail and pointed out that there were numerous cases pending against the PTI founder and former Prime Minister, including the Cipher and Toshakhana cases, which culminated in this Nikah case.

Safdar expressed his sympathy for the plaintiff and described the extensive legal battles that came with it.

He stressed the importance of addressing both the appeal and the suspension of sentence, referring to previous judgments of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Judge Majoka asked, “Will you also file a motion for suspension on medical grounds?”

Safdar confirmed this and mentioned Bushra Bibi’s health problems and the conditions of her detention.

On June 9, Bushra Bibi filed a petition with the IHC seeking stay of her conviction and suspension of sentence in the Iddat case.

Safdar stressed that the IHC was aware of the proceedings and accused the complainant of delaying tactics.

He read out the High Court’s instructions that a decision on the suspension of the sentence must be made within ten days and on the appeal within 30 days.

The plaintiff’s lawyer, Zahid Asif, questioned the need for a suspended sentence when prison conditions were pleasant.

Safdar reiterated that he has been fighting criminal cases for years and stressed the uniqueness of this case.

In his response to Asif’s objection, Safdar reiterated that he has been fighting criminal cases for years and stressed the uniqueness of this case.

He stressed the complexity of the case and the special situation of Bushra Bibi as a mother of five children facing unprecedented charges.

“It’s a strange case where both the man and the woman are in prison. So who cheated whom?” he insisted.

The court reiterated its commitment to a legally sound decision and stressed the need for convincing arguments on key issues such as inheritance law in the event of the husband’s death during Iddat.

Lawyer Safdar pointed out that the Supreme Court has the power to suspend sentences even when appeals are pending in district courts.

Expressing his hope, he said he expected Bushra Bibi to be released before the oath, adding that the same judge who tried the case should also decide on it.

Safdar argued that the case was filed six years after the alleged incident without including the plaintiff’s children as witnesses. He highlighted the irregularities in the court’s decision and suggested that there was a lack of solid evidence in the case.

He concluded his argument by saying: “The allegation is that the Nikah was performed without completing the Iddat period.”

If two husbands were making a claim, or if it was a case involving the children, this would be understandable. In this case, even the children are not plaintiffs.”

The court then took a 20-minute break.

After the break, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Zahid Asif Chaudhry, began to present his arguments.

“The court must determine the validity of the probation. The appellant’s lawyer called Khawar Maneka a ‘liar,'” Chaudhry claimed.

He pointed out that the court had not played Maneka’s interview in full and instead highlighted the interview of his son Musa Maneka in which he denied false reports about Bushra Bibi and the PTI founder’s marriage.

Chaudhry stated that the term ‘U-turn’ was introduced by the PTI founder, adding, “On January 7, the PTI founder mentioned that he would propose marriage to Bushra Bibi, subject to her acceptance or rejection.”

He sang a song from “Khuda Gawah” and quoted hadiths to argue the need for a guardian’s consent for marriage.

He questioned the absence of Bushra Bibi’s statement on Iddat and noted, “Mufti Saeed was positive when he was part of the core committee but turned negative when he opposed them.”

Chaudhry refuted the claim that the charges were drafted in Bushra Bibi’s absence, saying she was present but left the room before signing.

He also pointed out that the names of the children who were to testify had not been disclosed, thereby emphasizing the severity of the verdict.

“When did your client learn about the marriage?” asked Judge Majoka.

“On January 2, during cross-examination,” Chaudhry replied.

The judge questioned the delay in filing the application, to which Chaudhry replied: “An investigating agency had arrested him.”

Majoka asked about a previously withdrawn motion filed before the indictment and about potential pressure or threats.

Chaudhry explained that decent families avoid making family matters public and outlined the process of a court case.

Chaudhry concluded his arguments.

Judge Majoka asked advocate Salman Safdar about his availability for the main appeal, who confirmed his willingness.

The Iddat case

On February 3, Imran and Bushra Bibi were convicted in the Iddat Nikkah case. Twenty days later, an appeal was filed in the court against the verdict. Justice Arjumand heard the appeal and was scheduled to deliver his verdict on May 29. He then asked the IHC to refer the case to another judge.

On June 14, the IHC ordered the Islamabad court to decide within a month on the appeal of PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra against their conviction in the Iddat Nikkah case.

On June 11, the court questioned the legality of a judge’s dismissal from the case, saying the reason for the dismissal may not have been justified.

Later, the IHC transferred the case to ADSJ Muhammad Afzal Majuka. Imran and Bibi challenged the transfer of the appeal to the IHC through their counsel Salman Akram Raja. However, the registrar objected that the appeal was still pending in the sessions court.