An Islamabad district and sessions court on Saturday reserved the verdict on appeals filed by former prime minister Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi against their conviction in the Iddat case.
Additional district and sessions judge (ADSJ) Afzal Majoka is expected to announce the judgment at 3pm today.
The couple was convicted on February 3 — days before the general elections — on a complaint filed by Bushra Bibi’s ex-husband, Khawar Fareed Maneka, who alleged that they contracted marriage during the former first lady’s Iddat period.
Senior civil judge Qudratullah had sentenced the ex-premier and his spouse to seven years in jail and imposed Rs500,000 fine each — a decision that was widely criticised by civil society, women activists, and lawyers. The verdict had coincided with the Toshakhana and cipher case sentences.
Previously, District and Sessions Judge Shahrukh Arjumand was hearing the case and had reserved the verdict in May. However, on the day of its expected announcement, he sought a transfer of the case, citing Maneka’s request for recusal from hearing the appeals. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of ADSJ Majoka.
Last month, ADSJ Majoka had rejected another set of pleas filed by Imran and his wife seeking the suspension of their sentences.
Today’s hearing
At the outset of the hearing today, Maneka’s lawyer Advocate Zahid Asif said Imran’s legal team had mentioned bringing witnesses to the court during the previous proceedings.
“If they want to bring witnesses they can, we don’t have any objections,” he stated, adding that the court could accept evidence at any point during the case.
Referring to yesterday’s hearing, during which the judge had observed that Maneka being the follower of the Hanafi sect had lost the right to conciliation with Bushra Bibi, Asif pointed out that nowhere was the Hanafi sect mentioned neither had Mufti Saeed said anything regarding it.
He claimed that Imran was putting the entire responsibility of the case on “Bushra Bibi’s shoulders”. “The husband is sidelining his wife’s sacrifices and saying that he is innocent,” the lawyer alleged, adding that such behaviour was not expected from a leader.
He then went on to recite some verses of Allama Iqbal’s poetry in court.
Here, ADSJ Majoka remarked: “This is not possible … the marriage took place, both [of them] are responsible.”
Continuing his arguments, Advocate Asif contended that Bushra Bibi had said Maneka divorced her thrice verbally. “There is no standing of a verbal divorce … the law says that documented evidence weighs more,” he said.
The lawyer further stated that neither Imran nor his spouse mentioned in any of their statements that their marriage took place after the completion of the period of Iddat. He said that despite being given a chance, they also refused to present witnesses in court.
At one point, Asif also lamented that he wasn’t given ample time to present his arguments in court.
Meanwhile, the judge asked if there was a punishment prescribed for zina in the Holy Quran to which the lawyer replied: “Apart from four witnesses, there is no other punishment mentioned.”
Subsequently, Imran’s counsel Salman Akram Raja began his arguments. Citing the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, he stated that there was no point in the 90-day argument (Iddat period) because divorce papers were not sent by Maneka.
“Even if we accept their argument, there can be a legal defect but the marriage can’t be called fraud,” Raja said. He also highlighted that Maneka, in his statement, had called Bushra Bibi his ex-wife, adding that a photocopy of the divorce papers had already been presented in court.
After Raja wrapped up his arguments, the court reserved the verdict in the case.
Iddat case
Imran and Bushra Bibi were found guilty under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 496 (marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage).
According to legal precedence, Section 496 is considered an offence completely distinct from zina, an offence that ensues from not having a contracted marriage.
As per Pakistan’s superior courts, formalising nikah during iddat does not entail annulment of marriage as that requires a separate declaration; it will be treated as irregular but not void, in terms of legal fiction.
The charges against the couple were framed by Judge Qudratullah on a complaint filed under PPC Sections 34 (common intention), 496 and 496-B (fornication). However, Section 496-B was dropped by the IHC later.
Days after Imran and Bushra were indicted in the case, the IHC on January 19 had stopped the proceedings against the couple and restrained the prosecution from producing the evidence in the case.
The IHC then refused to quash proceedings in the case, saying the charge had already been framed by the trial court. It, however, gave the couple some relief by dropping the “illegitimate relations” charge of section 496-B of the PPC, which had not been framed by the trial court.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had disposed of Bushra Bibi’s petition, observing that the “required procedure was not adopted” for invoking section 496-B.
