The Iddat case proceedings, the sessions judge overseeing the case requested its transfer to another court on Monday, leaving many surprised as they anticipated a verdict that could potentially overturn the convictions of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi. The case, which has garnered significant public and media attention, took an unexpected turn when Judge Shahrukh Arjumand exited the courtroom after complainant Khawar Maneka expressed a lack of confidence in his impartiality.
The session began an hour late, with Maneka, accompanied by his counsel Rizwan Abbasi, making emotional arguments. Maneka asked the court for ten minutes to speak, a request that the judge granted despite his initial directive for the counsel to present arguments first. “My lawyer will not be able to explain my suffering. I will speak myself,” Maneka insisted, highlighting the personal impact of the case on his life.
Judge Arjumand, recognizing the contentious atmosphere and potential implications of his decision, wrote to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) requesting a transfer of the case. “Though the earlier application of the complainants has already been dismissed on April 30, 2024, I think it will not be appropriate to decide the lis when a specific objection has been raised on the Presiding Officer,” the judge stated in his letter. He further noted the complainant’s persistent attempts to delay the proceedings, suggesting a fixed timeframe for the disposal of appeals in any new court.
The courtroom tension escalated as Maneka spoke of the rumors and fake divorce documents circulating on social media, affecting his reputation and that of his daughter. His interruptions led to heated exchanges with PTI counsels, with Bushra Bibi’s lawyer, Usman Gill, calling for contempt notices against Maneka for disrupting court proceedings.
Maneka’s emotional plea compared his situation to that of Imran Khan, demanding equal respect and consideration. “Today, respect is being demanded for a person who has served as the former premier. Why not grant a poor man the same respect too?” he questioned, describing threats against him and the destruction of his household. Accusing the judge of potential bias, Maneka’s appeals led Judge Arjumand to observe that any decision he made would likely be viewed as controversial, prompting his departure from the courtroom.
Following the session, frustration among PTI supporters in the courtroom turned into a physical altercation, with some members assaulting Maneka and hurling water bottles at him. The situation escalated further outside the courtroom, where Maneka was attacked by an individual identified as a PTI lawyer.
This courtroom drama unfolded just days after an appellate court had reserved its decision on appeals filed by Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi against their convictions. Earlier this year, in February, a senior civil judge, Qudratullah, sentenced both to seven years in prison and fined them Rs 0.5 million each for contracting marriage during Bushra Bibi’s iddat period.
During previous hearings, Bushra Bibi’s lawyer, Usman Riaz Gill, argued that the complaint against the couple was filed with a significant delay of six years by Bushra’s former husband, Khawar Maneka. Initially, an unrelated individual, Muhammad Hanif, lodged a complaint accusing the couple of marrying before the completion of Bushra’s iddat period. However, Hanif did not appear in the trial court, and his petition was later declared inadmissible.
Gill emphasized that Maneka’s subsequent complaint, filed through the same counsel as Hanif, had to be scrutinized for its validity. He pointed out discrepancies in the documents presented and argued that Bushra had completed her iddat period, making her marriage to Imran Khan lawful. Conversely, Deputy District Prosecutor Adnan Ali maintained that the iddat period’s completion was crucial for the marriage’s legitimacy, recounting the disruption caused by the PTI founder in Maneka’s family life.
The judicial magistrate’s February verdict had stirred significant controversy, with Maneka accusing Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi of violating Islamic practices by not observing the mandatory waiting period after divorce. Maneka also alleged an adulterous relationship between the two before their marriage, further complicating the case’s social and religious dimensions.
As the legal battle continues, the next steps involve the IHC’s decision on transferring the case to another court, where the appeals and arguments will be revisited. This high-profile case remains a focal point in Pakistan’s legal and political landscape, reflecting the intricate interplay between personal grievances and public judicial processes.
