LAHORE — A sessions court in Pakistan has sought arguments from Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s counsel in a plea filed by jailed former prime minister Imran Khan’s lawyer, who is seeking permission to meet his client in jail in connection with the long-running defamation case Sharif brought against Khan, Dawn reported, in a case update carried by ANI on Sunday.
According to Dawn, Khan’s lawyer argued that he wants to meet Khan at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi to take his instructions on the case and obtain his signatures on documents, and that the jail authorities did not allow him to meet his client. The court adjourned the matter for a hearing on October 31, when arguments are expected from Sharif’s side.
The underlying case dates to 2017. Sharif filed the defamation suit against Khan over allegations connected to the Panama Papers scandal, and sought compensation of 10 billion Pakistani rupees. The Panama Papers controversy in Pakistan centred on former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Shehbaz Sharif’s brother, who was disqualified from office by the courts after the 2016 leak raised questions about his family’s offshore holdings.
The case has moved slowly for years. According to Dawn’s account, Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar and Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Ahmad Khan have so far recorded their statements in support of Shehbaz Sharif in the proceedings.
Khan, the founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, has been in jail for more than three years and faces a series of cases, which he and his party say are politically motivated and intended to keep him out of politics; the government denies that. Access to Khan — by lawyers, family members and party colleagues — has itself become one of the most contested issues in those proceedings, and applications over meeting access have repeatedly reached the courts.
This week’s plea is separate from the PTI’s contempt proceedings over Khan’s recent hospital transfer for a medical check-up, which Zark News reported on Saturday, and from the renewed public appeal by international cricket figures for his medical care. The defamation application concerns a narrower, procedural question: whether Khan’s own counsel can consult him in person to conduct his defence in a case brought by the sitting prime minister.
Why it matters: the hearing tests a basic element of a fair trial — a defendant’s ability to instruct his lawyer — inside one of Pakistan’s most politically charged legal files. A 2017 civil suit might otherwise attract little attention, but with the plaintiff serving as prime minister and the defendant, a former prime minister, held at Adiala, every procedural step is watched by both camps as a measure of how the justice system is handling Khan’s cases overall.
What happens next: the court hears arguments on October 31. If the plea is granted, Khan’s lawyer would be permitted to meet him at Adiala Jail for the purposes of the defamation case; if it is refused, the PTI is likely to challenge the decision in a higher court, as it has in related access disputes.
