Imran's treatment not possible in jail, IHC told

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court was informed on Thursday that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi were facing deteriorating eyesight and prolonged solitary confinement in jail, with their counsel raising concerns over medical treatment and prison conditions.

Barrister Salman Safdar, representing the PTI founder and Bibi, told the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Justice Muhammad Asif that both were suffering health complications, adding that adequate treatment was not possible in Adiala Jail.

During hearing of appeals in the £190 million case, the lawyer questioned the prison environment, asking what "infection" was affecting the right eye of both detainees and stating that required surgical procedures necessitated hospital access, which he said was not feasible within jail premises.

Safdar argued that prolonged solitary confinement was not part of the court's judgment and amounted to "torture" if continued over extended periods. He further claimed Bushra Bibi had previously been placed in solitary confinement despite earlier judicial observations against such treatment.

The lawyer told the court that during a recent jail meeting, the PTI founder had reported significant deterioration in eyesight, claiming only 15% vision remained, while 85% had been lost, and that doctors had indicated the damage was irreversible.

He also alleged that the PTI founder was kept in 22-hour solitary confinement, with no response even to greetings, while Bushra Bibi was held in 24-hour isolation.

Safdar further referred to an alleged emergency call from Adiala Jail on April 16 regarding Bushra Bibi's condition, saying the family was asked to reach immediately, and urged the court to summon senior jail officials, including the Inspector General of Prisons, to explain the conditions of confinement.

He said Bushra Bibi's bail request had been pending for over a year and questioned whether courts had historically been reluctant to grant relief to women.

Chief Justice Dogar questioned why arguments on the main appeal were not being advanced, stating the court was ready to hear the case and dispose of it expeditiously. He added that appeals were being taken up on a daily basis and decided without delay.

In response, Safdar said there was no objection to hearing the appeal, but he had instructions to first argue the suspension of sentence applications. He also indicated that senior counsel Latif Khosa may appear for arguments on the appeal.

The chief justice observed that once an appeal is fixed for hearing, appeal for suspension of sentence generally becomes ineffective, and directed counsel to prepare within 10 days for scheduling.

During the hearing, lawyers also referred to other pending cases, including the Toshakhana appeal, and exchanged arguments over the prioritisation of matters before the court. At the conclusion of proceedings, the bench remarked on frequent objections raised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief minister, before retiring to chambers.