Legal wizards ponder verdict rationale

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has once again found itself in the eye of a legal storm as both heavyweights, Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, received a knockout blow with ten years behind bars in the cypher case.

With just nine days left until the general elections, the party is grappling with the legal ramifications of the setback.
However, the written order is eagerly awaited, leaving legal pundits and curious observers speculating about the rationale behind the hefty punishment.

Nonetheless, lawyers are scratching their heads, wondering how the trial court arrived at a ten-year imprisonment verdict when evidence establishing the offence seems elusive. In political cases, circumstances often outweigh concrete evidence.

In the case of déjà vu, reminiscent of the 2018 elections when Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz faced convictions in the Panamagate, history seems to repeat itself. PTI now finds itself on the receiving end as the nation braces for a high-stakes electoral showdown.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court while granting bail to both leaders had found that there was no sufficient incriminating material available at this stage.

It said that there was insufficient which could show that Imran communicated the information contained in the cypher to the public at large with the intention or calculation, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power nor the disclosed information relates to any of the defence installations or affairs, nor did he disclose any secret official code to the public at large.

"We, therefore, are of the tentative opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners (Imran and Shah Mahmood Qureshi) have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence, which is to be finally decided by the learned trial court after recording of the evidence of the parties."

The order said that the offences of wrongful communication of official confidential information, etc., as defined in defined in clause (a) to (d) of Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 are generally punishable, under clause (b) of Section 5(3), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and are bailable under clause (b) of Section 12(1) of the act.

"It is only when an offence is committed in contravention of clause (a) of Section 5(1) and is intended or calculated to be, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power, or is in relation to any of the defence installations or affairs, or in relation to any secret official code, that it is punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act, with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years,” the order stated.

It is expected that both leaders will challenge the conviction in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), where there is a lower likelihood that the sentence will be suspended before the general elections.

The PTI leadership has encountered a challenging period in the courts since the events on May 9, when party workers and supporters launched attacks on military installations nationwide. This has led to a significant confrontation between the PTI and the security establishment.

Imran Khan has previously faced conviction in the Toshakhana case, and now Shah Mahmood Qureshi has also been barred from participating in electoral politics. Both are ineligible to contest in the elections.

While PTI experienced some relief during the tenure of former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, the party has, so far, been unsuccessful in obtaining favourable court orders under the current Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The PTI supporters are growing frustrated, a situation that seems to align with the main objective of rival parties.

The SC affirmed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling, deeming PTI's intra-party elections illegal.

Additionally, the resignation of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, slated to become the next CJP, compounded the frustrations within the PTI camp.

Typically, convictions of political leaders do not endure for extended periods. This pattern is evident in the Panama case, where Nawaz Sharif's conviction was overturned.

However, courts are often criticised for such erroneous convictions. The judiciary should draw lessons on how its judicial proceedings in political cases are susceptible to manipulation.