EDITORIAL: The verdict announced by the accountability court against former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi in the Al-Qadir Trust case was the one matter in which the PTI founder faced significant corruption allegations, unlike other instances where the charges against him did not directly involve corruption or gain from illicit dealings.
This was also the one matter where many believed him to be in his most vulnerable legal position. The ruling saw Khan being sentenced to 14 years in prison, while his wife was given a seven-year imprisonment.
A brief study of the Al-Qadir Trust matter reveals how the events of two legal cases involving property tycoon, Malik Riaz, ultimately landed Khan in a complex legal situation. In one, as detailed in the accountability court verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled in March 2019 that the land grant by the Sindh Board of Revenue to the Malir Development Authority and its subsequent exchange with Riaz’s Bahria Town were illegal, and stemmed from collusion amongst the involved parties.
Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Bahria Town was ordered to deposit Rs460 billion as compensation for its actions.
In the other case, the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), responsible for investigating money laundering and illicit financial activities both within the UK and abroad, secured a £190 million out-of-court settlement with Riaz in December 2019.
Apparently, the settlement had followed an extensive investigation into Riaz’s financial activities. That considerable sum, it was expected, would be returned to the Pakistani state. But as it later emerged, the authorities at the time – led by Shehzad Akbar, the then prime minister’s adviser on interior and accountability – permitted Riaz to use that amount to settle the sum Bahria Town was ordered to deposit by the Supreme Court.
This, one could contend, was an entirely unjustified concession accorded to the property tycoon, as it appeared that money initially confiscated due to suspicions of illegality was later redirected to benefit the very person from whom it was seized, in a different legal matter.
And as alleged by the prosecution, that reprieve to Riaz only came about as a result of a quid pro quo under which he donated a substantial tract of land for the creation of Al-Qadir University to be run by a trust overseen by Khan and his spouse.
Notwithstanding this apparent misuse of authority and the questionable actions of members of the PTI government, there appears to be little evidence that Khan or his wife materially benefited from this suspected quid pro quo in a personal capacity, and that remains the weak link in the prosecution’s case.
The PTI is sure to emphasise this critical point in its appeal against the verdict, apart from highlighting certain aspects of how the case was conducted, including the replacement of three judges and repeated delays by the fourth in announcing the verdict, raising concerns about possible undue influence in the handling of the case.
Although most of the public perceives that Khan and his wife gained no personal benefit from the saga, the PTI must explain why its leadership became so closely tied to someone battling serious cases pertaining to his financial activities.
In fact, this is a question that extends to other parties as well, as press reports show that the NCA case against Riaz involved the purchase of property previously owned by Nawaz Sharif’s son. Such connections raise broader concerns regarding probity and transparency in politics.
Unfortunately, given the nature of justice in the country, where court verdicts in the past were often influenced by political considerations, we are likely to see this legal battle continue for the foreseeable future, raising questions regarding the merits of justice being overshadowed by political agendas.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments