Former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, have filed formal appeals in the Islamabad High Court against their convictions in the Toshakhana II case. The move marks a fresh legal challenge to the verdict issued earlier this year by a trial court.
Also Read: Imran Khan’s Scheduled Jail Trial in Toshakhana-II Case Cancelled Again
Both appellants argue that the court based its decision on unreliable evidence and ignored key legal principles. They have asked the high court to overturn the judgment and hear the case urgently.
Appeals Submitted Through Legal Team
Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi submitted their appeals through their lawyer, Khalid Yousaf Chaudhry. The Islamabad High Court assigned diary number 24560 to Khan’s appeal. It assigned diary number 24561 to Bushra Bibi’s petition.
These diary numbers represent the first procedural step in the appellate process. The court will now decide whether to admit the appeals for regular hearings. The petitioners have requested early dates, citing the seriousness of the matter.
Legal observers say the court often prioritises such cases due to their constitutional and political significance.
Challenge to Witness Credibility
In their appeals, the petitioners argue that the trial court relied on the testimony of a dismissed government official. They claim that the witness lacked credibility and legal standing. According to the appeals, the court should not have accepted this testimony as reliable evidence.
The petitions also criticise the court’s reliance on an approver’s statement. Under Pakistani law, courts may accept such testimony only when independent evidence supports it. The appellants argue that the prosecution failed to provide any corroboration.
As a result, they say, the prosecution did not meet the legal standard required for conviction.
Allegation of Double Punishment
The appeals further claim that the court punished the petitioners multiple times for the same alleged offence. They argue that this practice violates the legal principle against double jeopardy.
According to the petitions, Pakistani law does not allow repeated convictions for a single transaction. The appellants insist that the trial court ignored this basic safeguard.
Legal experts note that higher courts often take such objections seriously. If accepted, they can lead to the annulment of convictions.
Questioning the Trial Court’s Authority
Another major argument concerns the jurisdiction of the Special Central Court. Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi state that the court lacked the legal authority to hear the case.
They argue that a court without proper jurisdiction cannot conduct a valid trial. Therefore, they say, the entire proceedings stand invalid.
Jurisdictional challenges often play a decisive role in appellate cases. Courts may set aside verdicts without examining further evidence.
Dispute Over Toshakhana Rules
The Toshakhana manages gifts received by public office holders from foreign dignitaries. Officials may keep certain gifts after paying a government-assessed price.
The appeals state that the disputed Bulgarian jewellery set was retained under existing Toshakhana rules. According to the petitioners, the regulations allowed former rulers to keep such items lawfully.
They also argue that authorities registered the case without completing a proper investigation. The petitions describe this as a violation of due process and fair trial rights.
The appellants claim that investigators ignored exculpatory material and rushed the prosecution.
Request for Immediate Relief
Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi have asked the Islamabad High Court to declare the trial court’s decision void. They have also requested the suspension of the verdict until the court decides the appeals.
The Toshakhana II case forms part of a wider set of legal challenges against Imran Khan. Since his removal from office in April 2022, courts have convicted him in several cases. His supporters describe the prosecutions as politically driven. The government rejects this claim and says accountability applies to all.
The high court’s decision on whether to admit the appeals will carry major legal and political weight. For now, attention remains fixed on how the judiciary will address the arguments raised in this high-profile case.
