Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan met his lawyer at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi on Monday, November 2, 2026, for the first time in seven months, in a meeting that lasted about 40 minutes and that his counsel said was far too short to cover the couple’s many cases. Barrister Salman Safdar, who represents Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi, said jail authorities facilitated the meeting at about 4:30 p.m., after repeated applications and requests, and that it was also his first meeting with Bushra Bibi in 11 months. The meeting did not resolve any case, did not change either person’s detention status, and did not, by itself, guarantee regular future access. Its significance lies in what it reveals about legal access in a long-running detention: a lawyer, a client facing multiple cases, and a gap of months between face-to-face consultations that both sides, for different reasons, had sought to close through the courts.
Safdar announced the meeting himself, in a post on X on Monday evening, and his account is the primary source for its timing and duration. He wrote that Adiala Jail authorities had facilitated a 40-minute meeting with Khan and his wife, that he had met Khan after seven months and Bushra Bibi after 11 months, and that the session was insufficient to cover all cases and legal matters. He added that both Khan and Bushra Bibi had briefed him on their health conditions and living conditions, and that they had given fresh instructions for some legal matters and cases. He did not, in that public post, disclose the specific instructions, the detailed health information, or the content of the legal discussion, and this article does not speculate about those private details. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Khan’s party, shared Safdar’s post and described the meeting in similar terms, as a 40-minute session arranged by jail authorities.
Dawn’s reporting, which spoke to the party’s central information secretary, Sheikh Waqas Akram, after he had spoken to Safdar in detail, described the meeting as lasting around 40 to 45 minutes, a small variation that reflects the difference between a rounded public figure and a more precise recollection. Akram was quoted as saying Safdar had reached Adiala Jail at around 4:30 p.m., that the meeting was held in connection with several applications filed in courts to arrange meetings with Khan, and that Safdar had said the time was not sufficient, because there were so many cases to discuss and because the meeting was being held after such a long time. Akram also said no political issues were discussed, and that the lawyer had shared details of court proceedings and asked Khan about future strategy for dealing with the cases. That framing, that the meeting was a legal consultation rather than a political discussion, is the party’s account of what took place, and it is presented here as such.
Imran Khan lawyer meeting at Adiala Jail: what Salman Safdar said
The distinction between Safdar’s previous meeting and this one matters for understanding why the seven-month gap is counted as it is. Dawn reported that the last time Safdar met Khan, the Supreme Court had designated him as amicus, a friend of the court assisting the court, rather than as Khan’s lawyer in the ordinary sense. This time, by contrast, he met Khan as his lawyer, in the presence of Bushra Bibi. Other reporting placed Safdar’s last publicly reported meeting with Khan in April 2026, following a direction from the Islamabad High Court that authorities arrange a meeting. The precise April date is reported as April 8 in some accounts and April 9 in others, a one-day difference that does not affect the central fact: no meeting of this kind had taken place for about seven months before November 2. That gap is the reason the meeting was reported as news, even though a 40-minute consultation would, in ordinary circumstances, be unremarkable.
The health and living conditions discussion, as described publicly, was general rather than detailed. Safdar said both Khan and Bushra Bibi briefed him on their health and on the conditions in which they were being kept, and Akram said health issues were also discussed during the meeting, although the party’s focus was limited to the cases. No detailed medical update was published in the reporting reviewed for this article, and no claim about either person’s current medical condition should be inferred from the fact that health was discussed. Health has, however, been a recurring theme in the wider legal history around Khan’s detention, including earlier court directions concerning medical examination and treatment, and earlier claims by his legal team about his eyesight, which led to a court-ordered medical team. Those earlier matters are background, not a report on the November 2 meeting, and they are mentioned here only to explain why health is routinely raised when access is discussed.
For Bushra Bibi, the meeting carried its own significance. Safdar said it was his first meeting with her in 11 months, a longer gap than the seven months for Khan. Bushra Bibi was arrested on January 17, 2025, in a separate case in which the couple were later sentenced, according to reporting on the meeting, and she remains incarcerated with Khan at Adiala Jail. The fact that a lawyer representing both members of a couple had not met one of them for nearly a year, while representing them in ongoing cases, illustrates the practical difficulty of preparing a defence without regular client contact. A lawyer who cannot meet a client cannot take detailed instructions, cannot test the client’s account against new evidence, and cannot confirm that the client understands the choices available in each case. That is the practical argument behind Safdar’s statement that 40 minutes was insufficient: the problem is not only the length of one meeting, but the accumulation of cases and decisions that had built up during months without a meeting.
Adiala Jail legal access and the court orders behind the meeting
The meeting did not happen in a legal vacuum. It followed a series of court directions that, on paper, already provided for regular access. The Islamabad High Court has allowed Khan twice-a-week meetings, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with his family, lawyers and other associates, according to reporting on the November meeting. On June 18, 2026, the High Court directed the Islamabad advocate general to ensure that a meeting between Khan, Bushra Bibi and their legal counsel was arranged within seven days, to facilitate legal formalities and the prosecution of appeals against their conviction in the 190 million pound reference case. On September 2, 2026, the High Court directed jail authorities to end the isolation of Khan and Bushra Bibi and to ensure that both were provided with facilities in accordance with prison rules, including meaningful human interaction, family access, exercise and reading material. The court held, in that September direction as reported, that lawful incarceration did not authorise the avoidable deprivation of human dignity.
That history creates a tension that readers should understand, without taking either side’s characterisation at face value. On one side, the party and the lawyer say access has been restricted in practice, despite court directions, and point to repeated applications, the seven-month and 11-month gaps, and the short duration of the November meeting as evidence. On the other side, jail authorities did facilitate this meeting, and Safdar himself, in one account, said the authorities had facilitated it in compliance with High Court orders. No separate, detailed statement from the jail authorities or the federal government explaining the previous gaps was included in the reporting reviewed for this article, and this article does not invent one. The authorities’ position, as it can fairly be stated from the material available, is therefore limited: the meeting was arranged by jail authorities, and it was presented by the lawyer as being in compliance with court orders. Whether future meetings will follow the twice-weekly pattern allowed by the High Court, or whether further applications will be needed, remains an open question that only future reporting can answer.
Imran Khan cases: Toshakhana, Al-Qadir and the pending proceedings
To understand why 40 minutes was described as insufficient, it helps to grasp the breadth of the legal proceedings involved, without prejudging any pending case. Khan has been in custody since August 5, 2023, following his conviction in a Toshakhana case concerning state gifts. He was removed from office as prime minister in April 2022, and he faces multiple corruption and terrorism-related cases, including cases linked to protests on May 9, 2023, which followed his arrest that day. The party has consistently rejected the allegations against him, describing the legal proceedings as politically motivated. That description is the party’s position, and it is presented here as an allegation about motive, not as a finding by any court. The allegations in pending cases remain allegations until they are decided by a court, and this article does not treat them as proven facts.
Two sets of convictions are most often cited in reporting on Khan and Bushra Bibi, and they need to be distinguished. One is the 190 million pound case, also called the Al-Qadir Trust case, in which Khan is serving a sentence and which was the subject of the June court direction about appeals. The other is the Toshakhana-II case, concerning allegations that the couple unlawfully retained a Bulgari jewellery set gifted by the Saudi crown prince during an official visit to Saudi Arabia. In that case, the couple were sentenced on December 20, 2025, with reporting describing a 10-year term for Khan and a seven-year term for Bushra Bibi. Some other accounts summarise the couple’s combined position differently, but the 10-year and seven-year figures are the ones given in the detailed reporting of the November meeting, and they are used here. Other Toshakhana references have seen convictions suspended pending appeals, according to reporting, which further complicates any simple summary of the couple’s legal status. The accurate picture is therefore not a single sentence or a single case, but a bundle of cases at different stages: some decided and under appeal, some pending trial, and some involving procedural questions about access, medical care and meeting rights.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from Dawn, The Express Tribune and Dunya News.