PTI chief moves IHC against denial of right to defence

Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamir Farooq on Thursday reserved the ruling on the petitions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, pertaining to his trial in an Islamabad court over Toshakhana gifts.

The PTI chief has challenged the jurisdiction of additional district and sessions court of Islamabad for trying the case and seeks transfer of the case to another court, besides alleging the judge’s bias.

The PTI chairman also moved another petition in the IHC, challenging the additional district and sessions court's order of terminating his right to defence in the Toshakhana [government repository] case.

The Toshakhana case was filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the PTI chief for "deliberately concealing" the gifts he received during his term as the prime minister and retained them from the Toshakhana.

During the hearing, PTI chairman’s lawyers Khawaja Haris, Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) lawyer Amjad Parvez and others appeared in the court.

Read PTI chief fails yet again to secure relief at SC in Toshakhana case

Khawaja Haris Advocate told the court that they submitted the list of witnesses in the court of the ADSJ on Wednesday. But the judge rejected the list saying that the witnesses were irrelevant to the case.

He added that the trial court said that if arguments were not given on Thursday then the decision would be reserved. What was the hurry, the lawyer asked. This showed the judge’s bias, he added.

The chief justice said that a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) report regarding the judge’s alleged Facebook posts had come. Haris said that it had been stated that those were not posted from the judge's Facebook account.

Haris continued that the trial court was aware that there were pending cases in the high court. The chief justice asked the PTI lawyer whether he was saying that the hearing of the case on a daily basis was the judge’s bias.

The chief justice further remarked that the system was not perfect and might have some flaws efforts should be made to eliminate those flaws. He added that he wished the trials should be held on a daily basis.

Haris replied that he was talking about a mindset. He asked whether a judge could pass such an order, knowing that the petitions were pending before the IHC. He added that the case transfer plea was not solely based on bias.

Haris said that the IHC had to decide on the PTI chief’s petitions. The first petition was against the decision to declare the Toshakhana case admissible; and the other related to jurisdiction.

Read more PTI chief fails yet again to secure relief at SC in Toshakhana case

After a break, when the proceedings resumed, Haris argued on the rejection of the witnesses list by the ADSJ. He added that the trial court called the witnesses as irrelevant. He took the stand that all the witnesses were relevant to the case.

After hearing the arguments, the court reserved the decision on the application against the decision of the trial court to reject the list of witnesses. The PTI chairman had also requested for an injunction against the hearing.

The PTI chief had also moved the Supreme Court twice for the stay order. A three-member bench, led by Justice Yahya Afridi, and including Justice Mazahar Naqvi and Justice Musrat Hilali, heard the petition on Wednesday.

In its written order, the bench said that no arguments had so far been presented on the merit of the case, adding that the case should be treated as if it had never been heard.

The bench further said that because of the ongoing court vacations, the bench would not be available on the next hearing of the petition on August 4 (today), therefore, it should be fixed before any available bench.

Meanwhile, the hearing of the Toshakhana criminal case continued in the court of the ADSJ on Thursday, and the ECP lawyer, Amjad Parvez, completed his arguments.

Amjad Parvez said that the case of the prosecution regarding the 2018-19 Toshakhana was that they took gifts worth Rs107 million by paying 20% under the rules but jewellery and vehicles had not been declared as assets.

The lawyer said that neither any vehicle nor jewellery had been declared in the assets of the PTI chairman and his wife, adding that the value of the 300-marla house and other assets has been recorded at only Rs500,000.

They themselves admitted that they received gifts worth Rs107 million but did not declare them, the lawyer told the court. The court adjourned the hearing till Friday (today) morning.