The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday rejected a request to immediately stay an accountability court’s proceedings against former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in two different corruption cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
Islamabad Accountability Court-1 is currently holding trials of the couple and some other accused for allegedly misusing the state’s gift repository—Toshakhana—and for their alleged role in a scandal involving an amount of £190m inside Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail.
The PTI had approached the IHC, seeking an immediate suspension of the prison trial proceedings against the accused. However, an IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri on Monday turned down the request.
Earlier, the PTI founder’s lawyer, Shoaib Shaheen, told the bench that the accountability court was conducting hearings on a daily basis and had so far recorded testimonies of eleven witnesses. He requested the court to stay the trials until the next hearing.
The court remarked that the cases were not going to be concluded immediately. Let’s look into the matter at the next hearing, the bench remarked. The court will resume hearing the case today (Tuesday).
Read: IHC reserves verdict on Imran’s plea against Toshakhana, £190 million case jail trial
Earlier, the IHC reserved its verdict on the admissibility of petitions against the prison trial of Imran Khan in the two cases. On Sunday, the PTI once again dismissed the Toshakhana reference and described the case as "devoid of merit" and "a concocted fabrication." According to the PTI, Shehbaz Khosa, advocate for Imran Khan, systematically dismantled the entire case during the cross-examination of Masih.
The party alleged that NAB relied on images of Toshakhana's jewelry sent to Masih, constructing the entire case based on the responses obtained from him.
The party asserted that Imran Masih lacks any certification for the assessment of jewelry, including the absence of familiarity with the abbreviation "IGI," which pertains to the relevant certificate for diamond grading. Furthermore, he does not possess any official documentation for his establishment, and even the proprietor remains oblivious to his identity.
The PTI emphasized that the witness failed to furnish any written evidence regarding market research and appraisals conducted by jewelry establishments. Moreover, the salesman did not possess any letter from the company, authorizing him for price determination and testimony in 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