No verdict in Iddat Case; Judge Requests Court Transfer

In a dramatic turn of events, the sessions judge handling the Iddat case requested its transfer to another court on Monday, without delivering the anticipated judgment that many believed would overturn the convictions of former premier Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi.

Judge Shahrukh Arjumand exited the courtroom after complainant Khawar Maneka expressed a lack of confidence in him. Maneka, after requesting ten minutes to speak, made an emotional plea.

Read more: Court Suggests Ruling on Imran, Bushra’s Iddat Appeals Imminent

Following this, Judge Arjumand wrote to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), asking for the case to be reassigned to a different court. In his letter, the judge noted that although a similar request had been dismissed on April 30, 2024, it would be inappropriate to decide the case when a specific objection has been raised against him.

He stated that arguments had been thoroughly heard and suggested transferring the appeals to another court to avoid controversy. He also mentioned that the complainant and his counsel frequently tried to delay proceedings, recommending a time frame for resolving the appeals.

During the hearing, which began an hour late, Maneka and his counsel Rizwan Abbasi were present. The judge noted that prosecutor Abbasi had not yet presented arguments on two points. Maneka then requested time to speak, asserting that his lawyer could not fully explain his suffering. This prompted Bushra Bibi’s counsel, Usman Gill, to request contempt notices against Maneka for disrupting proceedings.

Maneka expressed frustration over rumors about his and his daughter’s divorce, claiming fake letters were being spread on social media. This led to a heated exchange with PTI counsels, prompting the judge to ask if they intended to create a scene. Maneka compared his treatment to that of Imran, lamenting his own suffering and alleging the judge had been influenced.

Judge Arjumand then left the courtroom, leading to PTI members protesting against Maneka, with some throwing water bottles and slapping him.

An appellate court had previously reserved its decision on Imran and Bushra’s appeals regarding their conviction for marrying during the iddat period. The trial court had sentenced them to seven years in jail and imposed a fine for the violation.

Bushra Bibi’s lawyer argued that the complaint against the couple was filed after an undue delay and presented questionable evidence. He asserted that Bushra’s iddat period had been completed by the time of her remarriage, making it lawful.

The prosecutor argued the necessity of completing the iddat period for a valid marriage and accused Imran of interfering in Maneka’s marriage, leading to the divorce and subsequent complaint.