What was the hurry, wonders IHC

Bench questions hasty trial in cipher against Imran, Qureshi

ISLAMABAD:

 

Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq remarked on Tuesday that the cipher case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and senior leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi was neither a hard-core criminal case nor a white-collar crime, rather it was a unique hybrid-type case.

Heading a two-judge bench, including Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, to hear appeals against the conviction of Imran and Qureshi, the chief justice also said that the Constitution guaranteed the right to a fair trial but not allowing cross-examination of witnesses ended that right.

Barrister Salman Safdar, the counsel for the appellants, appeared in the court. He told the bench that the interior secretary had applied for registering of the cipher case with the approval of the federal government but the complaint did not contain the names of Imran or Qureshi.

“All the cases that have been constituted against the PTI founder are out-of-the-box. The decisions in Toshakhana, cipher and marriage during Iddat period cases have also been given in the same way, the lawyer told the court.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq observed this was not a hard-core criminal case, adding that it was not even a white-collar crime, rather it was a “unique hybrid-type” case that would set a new judicial precedence. However, Barrister Safdar stated that this was a case of crime against the state.

The chief justice also raised the question about a hasty trial. According to the Article 10-A of the Constitution, he said, it was necessary to fulfil the requirements of a fair trial. He added that if the right to cross-examination was quashed, that right was also lost.

Barrister Safdar said that the trial judge wrote in the judgment that he decided the case quickly on high court’s direction, although the Supreme Court had quashed the high court’s direction for completing the trial within a month.

The chief justice remarked that there was no bar on conducting daily hearing of the case but there must be some logical reasoning for that. He further remarked that the court would also ask about the status of the trial in the evening, questioning why the hearing continued even till 10 O’clock in night.

Barrister Safdar said that on January 24, four witnesses were cross-examined till evening. On January 25, the lawyer for the PTI founder sought adjournment due to illness. The lawyer could not appear before the court on one day, and the next day the trial judge appointed government lawyers.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb asked about the standing of those appointed lawyers. The chief justice remarked that the court would listen to the advocate general on the matter. Justice Aurangzeb asked Barrister Safdar as to why the trial was rushed. The lawyer replied: “Perhaps the judge had to meet a deadline.”

Barrister Safdar sought to draw attention of this court, saying that even today this was still happening in Adiala Jail, where Imran was facing some other cases. Later, the court adjourned the hearing of the appeals till Wednesday (today).