IHC orders cipher case concluded in four weeks

Single-judge bench says prison trial means open trial, not in-camera proceedings

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday ordered the special court trying the cipher case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi to complete the proceedings in four weeks. The court rejected the PTI vice chairman's bail application, while the pleas of the jail trial and indictment in the case were disposed of with certain directions. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq said in his judgment that the jail trial did not mean in-camera proceedings rather an open trial.

The chief justice ruled that no proceedings could be declared null and void merely because those were conducted at a wrong place, adding that the proceedings could not be set aside unless failure in delivering justice was evident. Qureshi, along with PTI Chairman Imran Khan, is currently lodged in the Adaila Jail and the cipher case was being heard against them in the prison. The court directed the authorities to ensure an open and transparent trial and ensure maximum possible attendance in the court, keeping security issue in mind. The court ordered the jail authorities to ensure dignity of the accused. The judgment said that immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution did not apply in this case, as the article applied to criminal charges made in the course of official duty.

The judgment noted that the PTI chairman was the head of a major political party and that his trial inside the jail was being conducted because his family had previously expressed concerns about his security. It added that bringing Imran to court on every hearing could create security issues. The judgment came a day after a division bench of the IHC, comprising Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb and Justice Suman Rifat Imtiaz, issued stay order on the cipher case trial inside the prison till November 16, while hearing the PTI chairman’s intra-court appeal.

Read more: Imran, Qureshi meet in Adiala jail

Senior Supreme Court Advocate Kashif Malik, while talking to The Express Tribune, explained that the order to complete the cipher case trial in four weeks was issued by a single-judge bench on November 8, while a two-member bench ordered the trial be stopped until November 16, on November 14. “Now the trial court is bound to implement the decision of the division bench,” Malik said. “If the division bench extends the stay on November 16, the court will not be bound to complete the trial in four weeks but in case of no extension, the trial court will be bound to implement the directive.” Meanwhile, another IHC bench restored Imran’s bail application in the Toshakhana case but rejected a similar application in the £190 million case because of his arrest. The bench ordered the accountability court to hear the matter afresh and decide it on merit.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, had reserved the ruling on Tuesday, which was announced on Wednesday. The accountability court had dismissed the bail applications in both the cases because of the PTI chief’s non-appearance in the court. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) arrested Imran following the dismissal of the bail application by the accountability court. On Tuesday, the government allowed the trial of the case inside the prison. Later the court permitted NAB to interrogate the accused inside the jail.
NAB started the interrogation of the PTI chairman in jail on Wednesday. According to Adiala Jail sources, NAB Investigation Officer Umar Nadeem, Case Officer Asif Munir and Prosecutor Roohul Amin and Haroon Baloch interrogated Imran for nearly three hours.

In the £190 million case, the accountability court extended the interim bail of Imran’s wife Bushra Bibi, till November 17 because of the absence of her lawyers, though Special NAB Prosecutor Irfan Bhola and others were present in the court. Separately, Bibi filed a petition in the IHC for her meetings with her husband in jail privately. She stated that she was allowed to visit her husband in jail every Tuesday, but she could not discuss family matters due to the presence of prison officials. She requested the court to order the Adiala Jail superintendent to allow her to meet with her husband in private. 

(WITH INPUT FROM OUR RAWALPINDI CORRESPONDENT)