ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday directed authorities to arrange a one-hour meeting between senior lawyer Sardar Latif Khosa and former prime minister and founder Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi, as a hearing of their appeals against convictions saw a dispute over legal representation and the time needed to prepare the cases. Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar issued the direction during proceedings after Barrister Salman Safdar said he had recently been allowed to meet the couple unexpectedly and had received instructions to argue their appeals. The proceedings concerned appeals filed by Imran and Bushra against their convictions in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case. An accountability court sentenced Imran to 14 years and Bushra to seven years in prison in January 2025. Safdar told the court that Bushra Bibi had questioned his absence over the past 11 months, saying: “Where were you for the last 11 months?” He said the situation had created a crisis of confidence between him and his clients, making it difficult for a professional lawyer to proceed with the cases. The court also questioned Safdar’s earlier position that he had been engaged only to pursue applications for suspension of the couple’s sentences. The chief justice asked him to allow Khosa to begin arguments on the appeals, saying the previous order had already established that Khosa would lead the arguments. Safdar, however, said the paper books for the appeals had not yet been prepared or provided to the defence, leaving him without the necessary material to prepare the cases. “I now have instructions to argue the appeals,” he told the court, adding that he needed time to review the record. Chief Justice Dogar offered him time to prepare the cases, while NAB prosecutor Rafi Maqsood pointed out that the prosecution had repeatedly been accused of delaying proceedings, but the defence was now seeking an adjournment itself. The chief justice also questioned the characterisation of the proceedings as a sensitive case, saying there was no distinction that prevented appeals involving larger volumes of documents from being decided.