ISLAMABAD: Lawyers representing former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan met him and his wife, Bushra Bibi, at Adiala Jail on Wednesday, following an Islamabad High Court (IHC) directive requiring prison authorities to facilitate access to their legal team. The meeting, which lasted nearly three hours according to one of the lawyers, came amid continuing concerns over restrictions on meetings with the incarcerated couple, Imran Khan’s medical condition and the progress of their pending appeals.
Barrister Salman Safdar and Advocate Latif Khosa separately confirmed that they had met the former prime minister and Bushra Bibi at the Rawalpindi prison. Their meeting followed an order issued by the IHC on Tuesday during proceedings on appeals filed by the couple against their convictions in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust reference. The court directed the authorities to facilitate meetings between Imran Khan and his legal representatives, reinforcing the right of the accused to consult their counsel while pursuing legal remedies.
The development is significant not merely because the lawyers were granted access, but because it followed repeated judicial directions concerning meetings with the former prime minister. Although the IHC has previously allowed meetings twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, access for family members, lawyers and political associates has remained a contentious issue. The latest meeting has once again brought the implementation of court orders inside prisons into focus.
Legal consultation and instructions on pending appeals
Barrister Salman Safdar announced on social media platform X that jail authorities had permitted a meeting lasting nearly three hours, from approximately 4pm to 7pm. He described the duration as extraordinary and said the lawyers discussed the legal and medical issues concerning both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi in detail.
According to Safdar, the meeting also provided an opportunity for the incarcerated couple to give comprehensive instructions to their legal representatives. He said clear instructions had been given for him to continue representing both in the main appeals arising from the Al-Qadir Trust case before the high court.
Safdar further stated that Advocate Latif Khosa would assist the bench alongside him in Bushra Bibi’s pending petition before the IHC. The petition concerns her eye complications and the relief sought in connection with her medical condition.
Khosa separately confirmed the meeting while speaking to reporters. In a video circulated by the PTI, he responded affirmatively when asked whether Bushra Bibi had also been present. He said the discussions covered Imran Khan’s health and the legal cases against the couple.
The accounts provided by the two lawyers broadly confirmed that the meeting had taken place and included both Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi. However, their descriptions of its duration differed slightly. Safdar put the meeting at nearly three hours, while Khosa told reporters that it had lasted between three and four hours. Earlier, PTI lawyer Awais Younus Chaudhry had told Dawn that the two lawyers remained at the jail for approximately four hours before leaving.
The difference in these reported durations does not alter the central development: the legal team was able to meet the incarcerated couple after the high court’s intervention, and the consultation covered both pending litigation and medical concerns.
Imran Khan’s health becomes part of the discussion
Imran Khan’s health was among the principal subjects discussed during the meeting. Khosa told reporters that the former prime minister had a blood pressure problem, describing fluctuations in his blood pressure as reaching a “terrifying extent”. He nevertheless said that Imran Khan remained active and that his resolve was strong.
Khosa indicated that he would provide further details about the former prime minister’s health and his own observations at a later stage. His comments came after Imran Khan was taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for another medical examination and follow-up treatment relating to an eye ailment.
According to a hospital press release dated November 11, Imran Khan was brought to PIMS the previous night for a medical check-up and follow-up eye treatment. The hospital stated that his vital parameters were normal, his clinical condition was stable and his general physical examination was normal.
The hospital’s statement provides an official account of the examination, while Khosa’s remarks reflect what he said had been discussed during the lawyers’ meeting. These accounts should be distinguished. A statement that a patient was clinically stable at the time of examination does not, by itself, settle every question about an ongoing medical condition. Equally, a lawyer’s description of blood pressure fluctuations is not a substitute for a detailed medical report.
The circumstances underline the importance of reliable medical information when the health of a high-profile prisoner becomes a matter of public concern. Medical assessments should be conducted by qualified professionals, and relevant findings should be communicated through appropriate and credible channels. This would help prevent speculation and ensure that questions about treatment are addressed on medical grounds rather than through competing political claims.
Court orders and the question of access
The latest meeting also raises a broader institutional question: how effectively are judicial directions concerning prisoners’ access to legal counsel being implemented?
The IHC has previously permitted Imran Khan to meet his family members, lawyers and other associates twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Yet, despite multiple court directives, meetings have frequently remained restricted. The issue has therefore extended beyond the question of whether a particular meeting is allowed. It concerns the consistency with which prison authorities implement judicial orders.
On Tuesday, the IHC directed authorities to facilitate meetings between Imran Khan and his legal team while hearing appeals filed by him and Bushra Bibi against their convictions in the Al-Qadir Trust reference. Khosa subsequently told reporters that the court had ordered that the meeting should not be shorter than one hour. When asked why Wednesday’s consultation had lasted so long, he responded humorously that the question should be put to those who had allowed it.
The significance of the court’s intervention lies in the principle that access to legal representation is an essential part of the judicial process. A person pursuing an appeal must be able to communicate with counsel, provide instructions, discuss evidence and receive advice about legal strategy. These requirements are not political privileges. They are integral to the administration of justice.
Where a court has expressly directed that access be provided, implementation should not depend on administrative discretion or informal arrangements. Prison authorities are responsible for maintaining security and discipline, but those responsibilities must be exercised consistently with lawful judicial directions. Administrative arrangements cannot be allowed to frustrate the purpose of a court order.
The issue is particularly important in cases involving extensive litigation, multiple appeals and complex legal questions. Effective legal representation requires more than occasional contact. Lawyers must have a reasonable opportunity to understand their clients’ instructions and prepare their cases. Any restrictions should therefore have a lawful basis and should not undermine the right to a fair legal process.
A history of interrupted meetings
The latest consultation follows a period in which access to Imran Khan has repeatedly attracted public and political attention.
On November 2, Safdar met the former prime minister after a gap of approximately seven months. That meeting lasted less than an hour, according to reports. Safdar had also met Imran Khan in April, several months after concerns about the former prime minister’s eyesight had emerged. At that time, the Supreme Court had designated Safdar as amicus curiae. His November 2 visit, however, took place in his capacity as Imran Khan’s lawyer.
After the November 2 meeting, PTI Central Information Secretary Sheikh Waqas Akram told Dawn that political matters had not been discussed. According to him, the conversation focused on legal cases and future strategy, although health concerns were also raised.
PTI lawyer Awais Younus Chaudhry said the latest meeting was intended to discuss the couple’s under-trial cases. He told Dawn that Safdar and Khosa had remained at Adiala Jail for four hours and left without speaking to the media or PTI lawyers. At the time, he said, it was not clear whether the two lawyers had met Imran Khan together or separately because their mobile phones were switched off.
Khosa’s subsequent confirmation established that Bushra Bibi had also participated in the meeting. He additionally confirmed that the discussions covered Imran Khan’s health, the cases against the couple and a possible 28th constitutional amendment, although he declined to elaborate on the constitutional issue.
The reference to a possible amendment is politically notable, but no substantive details were provided by Khosa. It would therefore be premature to draw conclusions about the content, purpose or political implications of the discussion. Any assessment of a proposed constitutional change must be based on its actual provisions and the formal position of the relevant political and constitutional actors.
The wider implications for the justice system
Imran Khan has remained in prison since August 5, 2023, while Bushra Bibi was arrested on January 17, 2025, in a separate case in which the couple were sentenced. Their legal proceedings have continued through the courts, including appeals and petitions concerning medical matters.
The immediate issue is the progress of those cases and the ability of the accused to consult their lawyers. But the situation also illustrates a wider test for Pakistan’s justice system: whether legal rights and judicial directions are applied consistently, irrespective of the political identity or public standing of the individuals involved.
The credibility of the judicial system depends not only on the judgments delivered by courts but also on the implementation of their orders. A court’s authority is weakened if its directions are observed selectively, delayed without adequate justification or left dependent on administrative preferences. The same principle applies to every prisoner, whether politically influential or entirely unknown to the public.
The state has a legitimate responsibility to maintain security in prisons. That responsibility, however, must coexist with the rights of prisoners and the requirements of due process. Access to counsel, appropriate medical care and compliance with judicial directions should be treated as institutional obligations rather than political concessions.
Wednesday’s meeting was therefore an important development for Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi’s legal teams. It allowed lawyers to discuss pending appeals, receive instructions and raise medical concerns after the high court’s intervention. Yet the larger question remains whether such access will be provided consistently, without the need for repeated judicial intervention.
For Pakistan’s institutions, the real test is not whether a high-profile prisoner can occasionally secure a meeting with lawyers. It is whether the rules governing access to legal representation, medical treatment and the implementation of court orders operate reliably for everyone. The strength of the rule of law is measured not by the status of those who receive its protection, but by the consistency with which that protection is guaranteed.
