Anticipation builds as IHC ruling looms
The Toshakhana is a repository which stores precious gifts given to rulers, parliamentarians, bureaucrats and other officials by heads of other governments and foreign dignitaries. PHOTO: FILE
All eyes are on the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as it prepares to unveil its ruling today (Tuesday) on the petition submitted by former prime minister Imran Khan. The petition seeks the suspension of a trial court's
order, issued on August 5, that found Imran Khan guilty of concealing assets and sentenced him to three years in jail.
A division bench of the IHC, comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, on Monday, reserved its order after the counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the defendant in this case, concluded his arguments.
Interestingly, the Balochistan High Court (BHC) on the same day quashed a sedition case against Imran, a slight relief for the embattled leader, who is facing around 180 cases in various courts, with charges ranging from terrorism and encouraging assaults on state institutions to abetting a murder.
When the IHC bench resumed hearing the case, ECP’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz presented detailed arguments responding to the points raised by Imran’s lead counsel Latif Khosa.
At the first hearing of the case on August 25, Khosa had argued that Imran’s sentence should be suspended in view of an unauthorized filing of a complaint by the ECP; lack of jurisdiction; the fact that Imran was sentenced to only three years in prison; that the trial court deprived him of the right of defence and that it delivered the order without hearing arguments about the complaint’s maintainability.
While presenting arguments as to why it was necessary for the court also to issue notices to the state of Pakistan as a respondent in the case, Pervaiz contended that there was nothing wrong with the way the ECP filed a complaint against Imran at a district and sessions court.
“The ECP approved the draft of this complaint and all members gave approval to the complaint. The ECP stated in its decision that the PTI chairman was involved in corrupt practices. The ECP ordered legal action against the chairman of PTI,” he said.
Read CJ calls into question Toshakhana verdict
The chief justice, however, noted that the ECP ordered its office to file a complaint and not the ECP secretary who can be authorized as per law to file such criminal complaints in courts. “Could anyone else besides the secretary file a complaint? Could the ECP 's DG also file this complaint?" he asked.
The counsel replied that the ECP secretary is the administrative head of the office.
Justice Farooq noted that administrative matters of the high court and Supreme Court are handled by their registrars. "Will a chief justice ask the registrar to take an action or the office, or both?" The lawyer said both the registrar and the office can be instructed to take action.
Rejecting Khosa’s argument that the ECP’s complaint should have been heard by a judicial magistrate first, the ECP’s counsel said in the past 50 years, no complaints regarding corruption and corrupt practices have been submitted to any magistrate.
“The magistrate does not even have the authority to issue orders on a complaint regarding corrupt practices, let alone having the power to pass orders on any complaint. The magistrate can only issue orders on complaints falling under their jurisdiction.”
To Khosa’s argument that Imran’s sentence should be suspended in view of its relative brevity, Pervaiz referred to a recent decision of an Indian court in the Rahul Gandhi case.
“[Congress leader] Rahul Gandhi had filed a plea for the suspension of the sentence which was rejected. The court ruled that suspending a [brief] sentence is not a straightforward rule.
“Rahul Gandhi had received a two-year sentence. He had filed a plea for the suspension of the sentence, which was rejected,” he said.
Imran’s counsel had contended that the trial court had deprived the PTI chief to present witnesses in his support but Pervaiz argued that Imran had submitted a list of irrelevant witnesses in the court. “This is a case of submitting false declarations of assets and liabilities and not a case of tax evasion,” he said.
PTI chief’s counsel on August 25 contended that on the morning of August 5, some people tried to abduct a clerk of Imran’s former lead counsel Khawaja Haris and that was the reason why he had failed to appear in the trial court on time.
Read More PTI chief’s bail: Opposing forces at work
“Khawaja Haris wrote to the chief justice of the Supreme Court and informed him about the matter. At 12 o'clock, Khawaja Sahib arrived at the trial court. However, the judge told him that now his presence was not required.
“At 12:30, the judge, in a brief order, pronounced a three-year sentence. At 12:35, it was discovered that Lahore police had arrived at Imran Khan’s residence. Imran had been arrested five minutes after the verdict,” Latif Khosa had claimed.
Pervaiz said he had not received a copy of Khawaja Haris's statement under oath in this regard. “The affidavit was mentioned in the Supreme Court as well, but it was not submitted through the SC's office; instead, the sworn statement was provided to the court during the hearing here.”
The ECP’s counsel wanted the court to grant him more time to explain his arguments but the bench did not allow him more time. Later, the bench reserved the order, announcing that it would unveil it today [Tuesday] at 11am.
BHC quashes sedition case
Meanwhile, a BHC division bench, comprising Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Gul Hassan Tareen, on Monday ordered quashing of a first information report (FIR) that accused Imran of sedition
Quetta Police had registered the FIR against the former PM on March 5 for allegedly using foul language against state institutions and inciting hatred. A citizen from Quetta had approached the police and submitted an application against the former premier.
The BHC said prosecutors had failed to obtain the required consent from the federal or provincial government to lodge sedition charges. The charges are "without lawful authority and are of no legal effect," the court ruled, throwing out the case.
The bench also ordered cancellation of a non-bailable arrest warrant issued by Quetta’s judicial magistrate-1 against the PTI chief as it admitted a constitutional petition for a hearing. The police had registered the FIR against the former PM at Quetta’s Bijli Road Police Station.
IHC to take up bails case
Interestingly, the same division bench of the IHC will also hear today [Tuesday] Imran Khan petitions, challenging orders of nine different trial courts that dismissed his pre-arrest bail pleas across various cases after he failed to appear in the respective courts.
Advocate Salman Safdar will represent the former prime minister.
Imran Khan found himself sentenced to three years in prison on August 5. Imprisoned and thus unable to attend the courts where he had originally submitted his pre-arrest bail applications, the PTI chairman encountered subsequent dismissals of these applications due to his absence.
Naming the state and complainants as respondents, Imran had implored the IHC to deem these trial court orders as invalid, illicit, and contradictory to the principles enshrined in Article 4 and 10-A.