RAWALPINDI: In a pivotal development, an accountability court has transferred a new Toshakhana reference against PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi to another court following the Supreme Court’s verdict on National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments.
This move came during a bail hearing for the former prime minister and his spouse, relating to new accusations of receiving a jewelry set from the Saudi crown prince. The hearing was conducted at Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, by Judge Muhammad Ali Warraich.
During the proceedings, Salman Safdar, the lawyer for Imran Khan, argued that the accountability court was no longer the right venue for this case under the updated NAB laws. He requested the transfer of the reference to a suitable court following the bail decision.
The backdrop to this legal battle includes a recent Supreme Court decision, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, which reinstated the NAB amendments made through the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022.
This ruling overturned a previous decision that had nullified these amendments, which were challenged by the PTI under the previous government. The modifications restrict NAB’s investigative scope to corruption cases valued over Rs500 million and exempt regulatory bodies from its purview, transferring existing inquiries and trials to respective authorities.
The prosecution from NAB objected to the bail applications during the session, asserting that the accountability court lacked the authority to proceed with the bail under the amended laws and recommended transferring the matter.
After hearing both sides, Judge Warraich adjourned the session for three hours before ruling that the case should be handed over to a special judge central, who will consider the bail pleas in the subsequent session.
Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, arrested on July 13 following their clearance in another legal matter, have filed for post-arrest bail through their attorney.
Their applications argue for bail on the grounds of “justice and fair play,” naming the state and the chairman of NAB as respondents. The case continues amid heightened legal scrutiny and political tension.
