The interim federal government on Friday moved the Supreme Court against the Islamabad High Court’s Nov 21 judgment wherein it declared deposed premier Imran Khan’s jail trial in the cipher case as “illegal”.
Asking the top court to set aside the decision, the ministries of law and interior filed a plea arguing that the IHC had “travelled beyond the jurisdiction” by nullifying the proceedings of a special court formed to hear cases related to the Official Secrets Act in jail.
It added that the IHC did not have the authority to terminate the proceedings of the special court while the decision was made without proper evaluation of the facts.
The petition named Imran, Judge Abual Hasnat Zulqarnain of the special court, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general, Islamabad police chief, deputy commissioner of the federal capital, and superintendents of Adiala and Attock jails as respondents in the case.
On Nov 21, an IHC division bench comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz declared the proceedings of Imran’s trial conducted in jail in the cipher case as null and void.
The IHC termed the government’s notification for a jail trial “erroneous” and set aside the entire proceedings.
Consequently, Imran and PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s indictments in the case stood null and void, and the trial was held again in an open court. The charges were framed against them again on Dec 14.
Separately, issuing a stay order against Imran and his wife Bushra Bibi in an "illegal" marriage case, the IHC stopped the trial court from recording the testimonies of the witnesses.
Read Qureshi calls for live broadcast of cypher case
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq also issued a notice to Bushra’s ex-husband and complainant, Khawar Maneka, seeking his reply by Jan 25.
Maneka accused his ex-wife Bushra of tying the knot with the PTI founding chairman without observing the mandatory Islamic pause—Iddat—after divorcing him.
On Jan 16, Islamabad Senior Civil Judge East Qudratullah indicted the couple at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail and summoned the prosecution witnesses at the next hearing on Jan 18.
During the proceedings on Friday, Imran and Bushra’s lawyer Barrister Salman Akram Raja apprised the high court that the entire district judiciary was present at Adiala Jail to record the statements of the witnesses.
Justice Farooq inquired about the details of the case, adding that the IHC would prohibit the trial court from recording the statements of the witnesses.
Raja apprised the court that if the complainant's statement was accepted, Imran and Bushra’s marriage took place 48 days after the divorce.
The court inquired what was generally the duration of Iddat.
The lawyer replied usually it was 90 days but noted Islamic scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani had given a clarification about this period.
He added that there was also a verdict of the Shariat appellate bench of the Supreme Court on the matter according to which there was no justification behind lodging the complaint.
The IHC CJ observed that even if there was no SC verdict available, a marriage that took place during Iddat later became regularised according to law.
He added that even if the nikkah was not formally solemnised, what was the crime in it.
Justice Farooq asked the lawyer what he was challenging in the plea.
Raja replied that he had challenged the notice issued to Imran and Bushra in the case.
Staying the proceedings of the trial court, the IHC issued a notice to Maneka and adjourned the hearing till Jan 25.
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