The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has disqualified former Prime Minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan for five years, and revoked his status as a returned candidate from NA-45 Kurram due to his conviction in the Toshakhana case. This development comes as Imran Khan challenges his conviction in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while serving a three-year jail term.
In a notification, the ECP cited the August 5 court order and declared the PTI chief disqualified under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution read with Section 232 of the Elections Act, 2017.
“Therefore, Mr Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi is disqualified for a period of five years and is also de-notified as a returned candidate from constituency NA-45 Kurram-I,” the notification, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune, read.
Earlier in the day, Imran’s lawyers Khawaja Haris and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan filed the application in the IHC on behalf of the former prime minister. "The decision of the trial court in the Toshakhana case is against law," stated the plea seeking for the verdict to be annulled.
The former prime minister was arrested at the weekend and whisked to jail after being found guilty in one of the more than 200 cases he has faced since being ousted from office by a vote of no confidence in April 2022.
Unless overturned, the conviction will rule him out of contesting upcoming elections. The PTI chief is being held at a colonial-era prison on the outskirts of historical Attock city, around 60 kilometres west of the capital Islamabad.
"We've submitted an appeal... our plea requests a temporary suspension of the trial court's ruling and seeks bail," Gohar told the media.
"The court will take up the case tomorrow and because the sentence is short, we hope that Imran Khan will be granted bail in (several) weeks' time."
Another of his lawyers warned authorities would try to delay the process.
"Currently there is no rule of law in Pakistan, we are rushing from one court to another," said Mishal Yousafzai.
The petition described the conviction as "without lawful authority, tainted with bias", and said Imran, 70, had not received an adequate hearing. Noting that the court rejected a list of witnesses for the defence a day before reaching its verdict, it said a conviction without hearing the defence case was a "gross travesty of justice, and a slap in the face of due process and fair trial".
The verdict was also a violation of high court orders which had called for a review of whether the case involved genuine criminal charges before coming to the final ruling, the petition said.
Power of attorney allowed Imran’s legal team to file a bail application on his behalf Tuesday, and also appeal for him to be moved to a more comfortable "A-class cell," usually reserved for VIP inmates.
Imran has requested the high court to issue an order for his release by suspending the sentence pending the decision on the central appeal.
The petition named the district election commissioner of Islamabad as the respondent in the case. It stated that the judgment passed by the trial court judge was “tainted with bias, is a nullity in the eye of the law and is liable to be set aside”.
Explaining the grounds for its request, the plea said that the Aug 5 order was passed “with the pre-disposed mind” of the trial court judge to convict and sentence the appellant “irrespective of the merits of the case”.
It said the order was issued without providing the petitioner with a chance to fight his case and alleged that ADSJ Dilawar had refused to hear the arguments of Khawaja Haris, Imran’s counsel in the Toshakhana case, on the pretext that he was late — which the plea claimed was because he was filing other applications with the Supreme Court and IHC.
“The impugned judgment was announced despite the fact that before commencement counsel for the appellant was very much in court fully prepared to address arguments after explaining the reasons for the delay in arriving in court, but the trial judge, who throughout the proceedings had been exhibiting his extreme bias towards the appellant and his counsel, and constantly using disparaging remarks against them, even in their absence, was bent on carrying out a well-orchestrated plan […].”
This, the petition said, was a “slap in the face due process and fair trial” and “a gross travesty of justice”.
It further alleged that the Aug 5 judgment was “already written” by the trial court judge, highlighting how the latter only took “30 minutes” to “dictate more than 35 pages” of the judgment.
Moreover, the petition said the verdict was in violation of the IHC’s Aug 4 orders, in which the high court had asked the trial court to “decide afresh” on the PTI chief’s application pertaining to the maintainability of the Toshakhana case.
Referring to the Supreme Court rules, the plea highlighted that “proceedings held by the learned trial court judge culminating in the conviction of the appellant in the instant case are corum non judice without jurisdiction thereby rendering the conviction and sentence of appellant void ab initio nugatory in the eyes of the law”.
It also highlighted that there was not an “iota” of evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the Toshakhana gifts and none of the witnesses provided by the ECP presented evidence in the case.
“The prosecution has not let any evidence whatsoever that the appellant had transferred any asset during any of the relevant financial years without adequate consideration or by revocable transfer.”
The petition subsequently prayed that the trial court verdict be set aside, while also urging the court to declare Imran’s conviction and sentence “illegal and without lawful authority”, and to acquit him of the charges.
Separately, the IHC granted Imran’s lawyers permission to meet the PTI chief at Attock Jail as the court took up a petition filed by the party seeking A-Class facilities for the ex-premier.
It urged that Imran be allowed to regularly meet with his legal team, family members, personal doctor Dr Faisal Sultan and political aides — the lists for which were also submitted to the court.
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