In Islamabad, a district and session court dismissed Khawar Maneka’s plea on Tuesday, which sought the transfer of the iddat case involving former prime minister Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi to another court.
Maneka’s plea was based on his lack of trust in Judge Shahrukh Arjumand, the presiding judge. The court was addressing petitions challenging the seven-year sentence of the former premier and former first lady in the unlawful marriage case.
Maneka, the complainant and Bushra’s ex-husband, along with PTI counsel Salman Akram Raja and other party lawyers, appeared before the court, accompanied by Advocate Rizwan Abbasi’s assistant.
Maneka expressed his concerns regarding the court’s impartiality towards PTI, requesting the case to be transferred to another court. However, Judge Arjumand rebutted Maneka’s claims, asserting his integrity as a judge throughout his career.
Maneka argued that the marriage certificate presented during the trial, dated January 1, 2018, was disregarded. This led to a heated exchange between Maneka and Imran’s counsel, Raja, with Raja dismissing Maneka’s claims as false.
Maneka’s plea highlighted his family’s belief that the judge would acquit Imran and Bushra, prompting PTI’s lawyer to label the request for a transfer as contempt of court.
Subsequently, the court reserved judgment on Maneka’s plea against the judge.
During previous hearings, PTI lawyers expressed dissatisfaction with what they perceived as delaying tactics from Maneka’s lead counsel. The court also faced criticism for postponing the iddat case for 10 more days until April 24.
Maneka’s lawyer, Rizwan Abbasi, had been absent from court during the two prior hearings. Despite assurances of Abbasi’s appearance, delays ensued, leading to objections from Imran and Bushra’s counsels.
Maneka’s lawyer eventually appeared at 1 PM and initiated arguments supporting the trial court’s verdict. He cited witness statements alleging that Bushra had not observed the iddat period, and her marriage with Imran was fraudulent.
Abbasi requested an adjournment until May’s first week, citing prior commitments. Imran and Bushra’s counsels objected, urging the court to complete arguments promptly. Despite opposition, the court adjourned until April 24, eliciting dissatisfaction from PTI’s legal team.
