The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has set March 11, 2026, as the date to hear crucial appeals from former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, seeking suspension of their sentences in the high-profile £190 million Al-Qadir Trust graft case. This decision, announced on February 26, 2026, marks the latest development in a legal saga that has gripped Pakistan’s political landscape and drawn intense scrutiny from both supporters and critics of the couple.
The case’s origins trace back to 2018, when Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi established the Al-Qadir Trust, a welfare organization focused on spirituality and Islamic education. According to government allegations, the trust was used as a vehicle to receive land worth millions of dollars from a prominent real estate tycoon. In return, Khan’s administration allegedly used repatriated UK funds to pay fines on behalf of the businessman, rather than depositing the money into the national treasury. The government claims this maneuver caused a loss of PKRs 50 billion to Pakistan’s exchequer—a staggering sum that has fueled public debate and media coverage.
Imran Khan, once celebrated as a cricket legend and later as a political reformer, now faces a 14-year prison sentence, while Bushra Bibi has been sentenced to seven years. Their legal troubles began with their indictment on February 27, 2024, and culminated in their conviction by an accountability court on January 17, 2025. Since then, the couple has maintained their innocence, launching an appeal in the Islamabad High Court shortly after their sentencing. Yet, for nearly a year, their appeals languished without a scheduled hearing, prompting their legal team to file multiple petitions urging the court to expedite the process.
The IHC’s division bench, composed of Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, presided over the recent proceedings. Barrister Salman Safdar, representing Imran Khan, highlighted the urgency of the matter, citing the former prime minister’s deteriorating health, particularly an ailment affecting his right eye. Safdar emphasized that the applications for suspension of sentence had remained pending for almost a year, a delay that had also affected Bushra Bibi’s petition. During the hearing, Chief Justice Dogar expressed visible displeasure when a large number of lawyers affiliated with Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party approached the bench, questioning whether their presence was an attempt to sway the court’s decision. Despite the courtroom drama, the bench ultimately accepted the plea for an early hearing, directing that both Khan and Bushra’s sentence suspension petitions be fixed for March 11, 2026.
The core of the government’s case rests on the assertion that the Al-Qadir Trust served as a conduit for illicit gains. Prosecutors allege that the trust’s receipt of valuable land was directly linked to political favors granted to the real estate magnate, with the repatriated UK funds being diverted to settle his fines rather than benefiting the public purse. The prosecution contends that this arrangement amounted to a gross abuse of power and a breach of public trust.
Imran Khan, however, has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing. In his written response to the IHC, Khan asserted that neither he nor his wife benefited financially from the trust or its associated transactions. He went further, labeling the charges as part of a politically motivated campaign designed to undermine his leadership and discredit his party. According to Khan, the case against him and Bushra Bibi was fabricated in retaliation for a separate corruption reference he had initiated against Maryam Nawaz, a prominent political rival. Khan’s defense has also challenged the prosecution’s evidence, citing inconsistencies in witness statements and accusing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of destroying key records related to high-profile political figures, including Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, and Asif Zardari.
One of the central legal arguments advanced by Khan’s team revolves around amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999. These amendments, Khan argues, shield cabinet decisions from prosecution unless there is clear evidence of personal gain by the officials involved. The IHC has acknowledged the “substance” of this claim, instructing the trial court to consider its validity in any further deliberations. This legal nuance could prove pivotal, as it touches on the broader question of how executive decisions are scrutinized under Pakistan’s anti-corruption laws and whether political leaders can be held personally liable for actions taken in an official capacity.
For nearly a year following their convictions, Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi’s appeals remained in limbo. Their legal team, led by Barrister Safdar, filed no fewer than five miscellaneous petitions seeking to have the appeals scheduled for hearing. In court, Safdar argued, “The applications for suspension of sentence had remained pending for nearly a year.” He also pointed out that the registrar’s office had failed to act on multiple requests for an early hearing, a delay that compounded the couple’s legal woes and kept them behind bars.
According to reporting by the Press Trust of India, the IHC’s decision to finally fix the appeals for hearing followed repeated pleas from the defense. The court’s order brings a measure of clarity to a process that had become mired in procedural delays and political intrigue. The upcoming March 11 hearing is expected to draw significant public attention, not only because of the high-profile defendants but also due to the broader implications for Pakistan’s legal and political systems.
The Al-Qadir Trust case has become a lightning rod for debate in Pakistan. Supporters of Imran Khan argue that the charges are part of a broader pattern of political victimization, pointing to the timing of the case and the targeting of PTI leaders. Critics, on the other hand, view the case as a necessary step toward accountability, arguing that no one—regardless of status—should be above the law. The case has also prompted discussion about the role of the judiciary, the effectiveness of Pakistan’s anti-corruption agencies, and the challenges of ensuring due process in a politically charged environment.
As the March 11 hearing approaches, the stakes could hardly be higher. For Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, the outcome may determine not only their personal freedom but also their political futures. For Pakistan, the proceedings offer a test of the country’s commitment to justice, transparency, and the rule of law. The eyes of the nation—and indeed, much of the world—will be watching closely to see how the next chapter unfolds.
With the Islamabad High Court’s decision to hear the appeals, a long-stalled legal battle finally moves forward, promising new revelations and, perhaps, a turning point in one of Pakistan’s most consequential corruption cases in recent memory.