Imran, Bushra indicted in £190m corruption case

Both the accused deny charges against them

RAWALPINDI:

An accountability court in Rawalpindi on Tuesday indicted former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in the £190 million corruption case.

Judge Nasir Javed Rana presided over the hearing at the Adiala Jail. Judge Nasir has replaced Judge Muhammad Bashir as he is retiring in a few weeks.

Judge Bashir was supposed to indict the ex-premier and former first lady on Jan 26 but the indictment was deferred to Jan 30. It was then scheduled for Feb 10 but was again deferred till Feb 27.

During the hearing, Judge Rana read out the charge sheet against the two. Both Imran and Bushra denied the charges.

The court then summoned five National Accountability Bureau (NAB) witnesses at the next hearing on March 6.

The case of six others including Zulfikar Bukhari, Farhat Shehzadi, and Shehzad Akbar, was separated.
The lawyers of the accused had requested provision of the copy of the challan again.

At one point, the judge inquired that Imran, “please inform the court whether your teeth have been checked or not”.
The PTI founder said that no dental check-up had been conducted yet. “The prison administration had said that the doctor will come on Sunday, while now the prison administration is saying that the doctor will come next Sunday.”

The court granted both requests for provision of general physician and dentist for medical examination and dental check-up of the PTI founder.

In December, NAB had filed a corruption reference against Imran and seven others, including his wife, in connection with the Al-Qadir University Trust.

The case alleges that Imran and Bushra obtained billions of rupees and land worth hundreds of kanals for legalising Rs50 billion – at that time £190 million – that was identified and returned to the country by the UK during the previous PTI government.

The reference filed by NAB alleged that Imran, who is currently in jail, played a “pivotal role in the illicit transfer of funds”. It also claimed that despite being given multiple opportunities to justify and provide information, the accused deliberately, with mala fide intention, refused to give information on one pretext or another.