Imran gets ‘partial relief’

ISLAMABAD:

Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay a trial court’s proceedings in the Toshakhana (gift repository) case, the legal wizards of PTI Chairman Imran Khan have succeeded in convincing the top court to urge the Islamabad High Court to decide his pending petitions, especially those falling in the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The petitions, which are lying pending in the IHC since May, are crucial to paving the way for a much-needed relief to the former premier on technical grounds in the Toshakhana case. In the event of the IHC refusing to entertain them, the ball will land in the SC’s court.

While nixing Imran’s plea, the apex urged the high court to decide three of his pending petitions challenging the court's decision to return the matter to the trial court.

Following the top court’s order, it is expected that the petitions will end up in the Supreme Court during the tenure of Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, who is already facing criticism from the ruling political parties for giving “undue” relief to the PTI chief.

On the other hand, the PTI is upbeat about the prospects of a major relief from CJP Bandial to its party chief before the former’s retirement in September.

However, the legal woes are least likely to end there as a slew of cases will keep the PTI chief on his toes to avert the drop of the axe of disqualification on him from other trial proceedings.

The risks are heightening amid the talk that disqualification was fast becoming a fait accompli as it has been made clear that the general elections will not be held before the PTI chief is disqualified and put behind bars in any other case.

Meanwhile, observers point out it will be interesting to see whether or not IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq will grant a stay order on the trial court’s proceeding on Thursday (today).

Imran has already requested the IHC CJ to recuse himself from hearing his cases on several grounds. Despite the trial court’s directions, the PTI chairman appeared before it twice since December last year.

On the other hand, quite notably, even as there was no requirement to appear in person before the apex court on Wednesday, Imran was seen ensconced in the front row of courtroom No 3 to witness the proceedings – a tactic that politicians usually resort to in order to mark their presence and gain “psychological advantage”.

Interestingly, CJP Bandial, being the “master of the roster”, has also changed his approach to critical matters related to Imran as he fixed the PTI chief’s case before a bench led by Justice Yahya Afridi, a jurist usually counted in Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s camp.

It was also witnessed that Justice Afridi handled the situation sagaciously and passed the order with the consent of both parties, with well-articulated observations.

During the hearing, Justice Afridi noted that the issue of jurisdiction should always be decided first and observed that the high court had a supervisory jurisdiction, and it would not interfere in the trial court’s proceedings.

Senior lawyers believe that Imran is fortunate as despite his confrontation with the ‘powerful circles’, he was still acquiring some relief from the apex court.

There may be two reasons for this – one mindset within the superior courts believes that political leaders should not be removed from electoral politics through judicial orders.

SC’s Justice Athar Minallah is one notable example of those who subscribe to this idea.Meanwhile, the other ‘camp’ within the judiciary had played a key role in bringing Imran into power and ousting his main opponent, PML-N supremo and former premier Nawaz Sharif, before the 2018 general elections, and has a ‘soft corner’ for the PTI chief.It is yet unclear whether or not the judges sharing this group’s perspective will play a role in preventing Imran’s disqualification.It is to be noted that when Justice Isa will take charge as the CJP, a different mindset will be in the driving seat in the apex court.So far, Imran has yet to give any signal of reconciliation with the leadership of rival political parties.