A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Monday rejected an application seeking the cancellation of non-bailable warrant issued for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in the Toshakhana criminal proceedings case.
Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal announced the verdict reserved earlier in the day after hearing the arguments on the application filed by the PTI chief through Qaiser Imam, Barrister Gohar and Ali Bukhari.
The additional sessions judge had issued the warrants for Imran’s arrest last week after the PTI chairman failed to appear in the court, while attending hearings of some other cases in the courts nearby.
Read Imran evades arrest in Lahore, demands 'public trial' of Toshakhana case
Following the issuance of warrants, an Islamabad police team reached Imran’s Zaman Park residence to arrest him, but it returned empty-handed after PTI Senator Shibli Faraz told them that Imran was not available.
During Monday’s hearing, lawyer Qaiser Imam argued that the issuance of warrants over private complainants had been avoided to some extent. Therefore, he requested the court to cancel the arrest warrant for Imran.
Judge Iqbal remarked that on the morning of Feb 28, Imran’s lawyers had said that he would not come. However, on the same date, Imran had to go to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and other courts located in the judicial complex.
According to the lawyer, Imran’s life was in danger and that a murderous attack on him had already taken place. He also said that Imran had health problems and doctors had advised him to avoid travel.
The lawyer pleaded that Imran should be given an opportunity by cancelling the non-bailable warrant to allow him to appear in the court in person. However, later the judge rejected the plea and upheld the warrants.
The PTI chief is accused of concealing the details of the gifts he retained from the Toshakhana – the government repository, where gifts handed to officials from foreign dignitaries are kept. The next hearing of the case is scheduled for Tuesday (today).
In the judgement, the judge said that Imran was in a position to appear in this court on Feb 28 as he appeared in other courts but he willfully avoided to appear before this court.
Protective bail
Imran on Sunday also moved the Lahore High Court (LHC) for the protective bail in the case. However, the registrar office on Monday raised objections to two out of the three applications.
Imran had sought protective bail in three cases, two concerning the cases registered at the Ramna police station in Islamabad, and one in the Toshakhana case through his counsel Azhar Siddique.
The registrar office intimated to the lawyer that the copies of court orders wherein other PTI leaders had secured protective bails in the same cases were not attached to the petitioner's applications.
Cases registered
Meanwhile, the Station House Office (SHO) of the Secretariat police station of Islamabad lodged the first information report (FIR) against Shibli Faraz and 150 workers of the PTI for threatening the police at Zaman Park on Sunday.
SHO Nadeem Tahir said in his complaint at the Lahore’s Race Course police station that when the police reached Zaman Park to arrest Imran, they were surrounded by a mob and threatened of dire consequences.
Read More PTI chairman claims Bajwa 'rescued' Shehbaz in NAB cases
The FIR stated that the mob threatened to kill the police, adding that PTI Chairman Imran did all the planning. It said that the mob had told the police that they would kill them if they moved even an inch.
Further, the PTI chief was booked in Quetta for inciting “hatred” against institutions. An FIR was lodged at the Bijli Road police station against Imran for inciting hatred against state institutions in his speeches. A senior police official told The Express Tribune that the FIR was lodged on an application submitted by petitioner Khalil Kakar, a resident of Nawan Killi Quetta. Kakar accused the former premier of using unreasonable language against state institutions and creating unrest in the country.
Imran moves LHC against PEMRA's ban
Imran on Monday filed a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC), challenging Pemra’s prohibition order banning TV channels from broadcasting his live or recorded speeches.
The petition, filed through Barrister Muhammed Ahmed Pansota, contended that in the judgment reported as ‘Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs Pemra’, the then Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah had declared a similar Pemra prohibition order as “ultra vires the Ordinance” (over-stretching itself beyond the powers conferred upon it) on similar grounds.
Imran’s counsel stated in the petition that Pemra issued the impugned order in excess of the jurisdiction vested in it and without having regard of the constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution.
A plain reading of Section 27 also, prima-facie, showed that it did not empower the authority to issue a blanket prohibition order, which appeared to be in violation of the principle of proportionality, the former premier's counsel added.
He contended that under Section 8 of the Pemra Ordinance, “1/3rd of the total members of the authority shall constitute a quorum for the meetings of the authority requiring a decision by the authority which comprises a chairman and 12 members [13 in all]”.
As such, at least five members should be present to constitute a quorum, and, under Section 8(5), all orders, determinations, and decisions of the authority shall be taken in writing and shall identify the determination of the chairman and each member separately, the petition read.
The counsel added that according to the regulatory authority’s own statement, Pemra meeting which passed the “impugned order” was attended by only four members, including its chairman.
“In as much as less than 1/3rd of all members were present; the impugned order was therefore coram-non-judice. The said order also failed to pass muster under Section 8(5) of the Pemra Ordinance as the separate order of each member has not been identified therein,” the petition stated.
The counsel contended that Pemra’s order was illegal, unlawful, and contrary to the fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution of Pakistan “as such liable to be set aside”.
In the petition, the former premier's counsel also denied Pemra’s claims that Imran delivered hate speech or any provocative statements against state institutions.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ