A fresh dispute has emerged between Adiala Jail authorities and the legal counsel representing former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, over the signing and handover of powers of attorney required to pursue their appeals before the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The Imran Khan vakalatnama row centres on conflicting timelines and claims about when the necessary documents were prepared, communicated, and made available for collection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Imran Khan vakalatnama, the dispute is the latest in a series of legal access issues that have surfaced repeatedly since Imran Khan’s incarceration, with the matter now playing out through written submissions before the IHC in connection with the high-profile £190 million reference.
What the Jail Authorities Claim Imran Khan vakalatnama
According to a written reply submitted to the IHC, the superintendent of Adiala Jail stated that the powers of attorney signed by Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi had been prepared on June 16 in compliance with earlier court orders. The jail authorities said their counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar, had been informed of this the same day via text message, and they attached a screenshot of that message as evidence with their court submission.
The superintendent further alleged that, despite being notified, the legal team representing the couple did not collect the documents ahead of the hearing held on June 18, suggesting that Safdar had attempted to mislead the court about the sequence of events.
Counsel’s Response in the Imran Khan Vakalatnama Dispute
Barrister Salman Safdar strongly disputed the jail superintendent’s version of events. He said members of his legal team had visited Adiala Jail between five and six times over the preceding four weeks specifically to obtain the powers of attorney, but had not been provided with the documents during those visits. According to Safdar, advocates Sarmad, Ahmad Maysar, and Khalid Yousaf had approached the jail on more than five occasions in their effort to secure the paperwork.
Safdar said the repeated unsuccessful attempts ultimately compelled the legal team to file a contempt petition before the IHC on the morning of June 15. He added that it was only after filing that petition that jail authorities first indicated a power of attorney executed solely by Imran Khan — and not by Bushra Bibi — could be collected, contradicting the jail’s account that both documents had been ready and communicated on June 16.
Background: A Recurring Pattern of Legal Access Disputes
The Imran Khan vakalatnama row is not an isolated episode. Earlier this year, the IHC directed the advocate general Islamabad to arrange meetings between Imran Khan, Bushra Bibi, and their legal counsel within seven days, after Safdar told the court that repeated attempts to meet his client at Adiala Jail had been unsuccessful, leaving him unable to obtain instructions or secure a signed vakalatnama for the appeals.
Imran Khan vakalatnama dispute Separately, the Supreme Court has also taken up a related matter, ordering the Adiala Jail superintendent, Punjab’s home secretary, and the advocate generals of Punjab and Islamabad to submit replies within three weeks regarding alleged denial of legal access to Imran Khan. That petition, filed by PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja, challenged an earlier IHC dismissal of a contempt petition concerning visitation rights for Imran Khan’s legal team.
In a related development from earlier this year, the IHC had also sought a response from Adiala Jail after Imran Khan’s counsel, Khalid Yousaf Chaudhry, alleged that prison authorities had refused to even accept power of attorney documents on multiple occasions.
Why the Vakalatnama Matters in This Case
A vakalatnama, or power of attorney, is a foundational legal document that authorises a lawyer to formally represent a client in court. Without a duly signed and submitted vakalatnama, a lawyer cannot file or pursue appeals on a client’s behalf, regardless of how much preparatory legal work has otherwise been completed. This is what makes disputes over the document’s signing and delivery procedurally significant rather than a mere technicality — delays in obtaining it can directly affect a client’s ability to exercise their right to appeal within applicable time limits.
In Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi’s case, the appeals in question relate to their conviction in the £190 million reference, in which an accountability court sentenced Imran Khan to 14 years and Bushra Bibi to seven years in January 2025. Both have since challenged their convictions before the IHC.
Two Competing Narratives on Imran Khan vakalatnama row
The conflicting accounts at the heart of the Imran Khan vakalatnama row illustrate a broader pattern that has surfaced repeatedly in legal proceedings involving the incarcerated PTI founder: jail authorities maintaining that procedures have been followed and documentation made available, against assertions from his legal team that access has been repeatedly delayed or obstructed. Pakistani courts, including the IHC and Supreme Court, have at various points acknowledged the seriousness of legal access concerns, even as the underlying factual disputes between the two sides remain unresolved in several instances.
Neither account submitted to the IHC in this latest dispute has yet been formally adjudicated, and it remains for the court to determine which version of events more accurately reflects what occurred between June 15 and June 18.
Possible Impact and Analysis on Imran Khan vakalatnama
The continuing vakalatnama dispute carries several implications for the ongoing legal proceedings:
- Appeal timelines: Continued disagreement over documentation could further delay the filing and prosecution of appeals in the £190 million reference, an outcome that may concern both the defence and the court given the time-sensitive nature of appellate processes.
- Institutional scrutiny: With the Supreme Court already examining related questions about legal access at Adiala Jail, this latest dispute may add to the body of evidence the apex court considers in its review.
- Public and political attention: Given Imran Khan’s prominence as PTI’s founder, legal access disputes involving him tend to draw sustained media and political attention, keeping pressure on both jail authorities and the judiciary to resolve such matters expeditiously.
What Happens Next (Imran Khan vakalatnama)
The IHC is expected to examine both submissions — the jail superintendent’s written reply and Barrister Safdar’s response — as proceedings in the £190 million reference continue. Given the history of related disputes already before both the IHC and the Supreme Court, observers are likely to watch closely for how the court resolves the conflicting accounts and whether it issues further directions to ensure timely access to legal documentation going forward.
Read Also: France Iraq World Cup Clash Makes History as Storm Delay Interrupts Mbappe’s Double
Conclusion
The latest Imran Khan vakalatnama row underscores the recurring friction between jail authorities and the legal team representing the incarcerated PTI founder and his wife over basic procedural requirements needed to pursue their appeals. With conflicting claims now before the Islamabad High Court, the resolution of this dispute is likely to have a direct bearing on how quickly the appeals in the £190 million reference can proceed — and may add further weight to the broader, ongoing judicial scrutiny of legal access arrangements at Adiala Jail.
Supreme Court of Pakistan — https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk