Court rejects Maneka’s plea for transfer of iddat case to another judge

ISLAMABAD:

A district and session court in Islamabad rejected on Tuesday Khawar Maneka’s plea seeking transfer of the iddat case, involving former premier Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi, to another court.

Maneka's plea cited a lack of trust in the presiding judge, Shahrukh Arjumand, for seeking the transfer. The court was hearing petitions against the seven-year sentence of the former premier and former first lady in the unlawful marriage case.

Complainant and ex-husband of Bushra, Khawar Manika, PTI counsel Salman Akram Raja, and other party lawyers appeared before the court along with the assistant counsel of Advocate Rizwan Abbasi.

“The court has a favourable attitude towards PTI, so I request that my case be transferred to another court," said Maneka as the proceedings commenced. 

However, Judge Arjumand disagreed with Maneka and said he has never lost trust as a judge during his career. 

Maneka then claimed that Imran and Bushra’s marriage certificate, dated January 1, 2018, was shown during the trial was disregarded.

He then engaged in a bitter exchange with Imran's counsel, Raja, who termed Maneka's version a "lie". 

Maneka in his plea took the stand that it has become known in his entire family that the judge will acquit Imran and Bushra in the case. The PTI lawyer termed the demand to transfer the case to another court on this basis as ‘contempt of court.”

Read Imran, wife indicted in marriage case

Later the court reserved judgment on Maneka’s plea against the judge.

The PTI lawyers, during the last hearing, expressed dissatisfaction with what they claim are the "delaying tactics" of Maneka’s lead counsel, as well as a court decision to postpone the iddat case for another ten days—until April 24.

During the previous two hearings of the appeal, Maneka’s lawyer, Rizwan Abbasi, had not appeared in court. When Judge Shahrukh Arjumand resumed the hearing on Monday, some members of Imran’s legal team informed the court that his senior counsels would appear by 10 am.

In response to the court's inquiry, it was revealed that neither Maneka nor his lead counsel was present.
When the court reconvened at 10 am, Rizwan Abbasi's assistant informed the court that Maneka’s lead counsel was occupied in the Supreme Court and would appear in court by 11:30 am. The court warned that if Abbasi failed to show up, it would proceed to deliver its verdict on the appeals.

At 11:30 am, the court was informed that Maneka’s lawyer would appear at 1 pm. Counsels for Imran and Bushra requested the court to document these delays in the court order.

Maneka’s lawyer eventually appeared in court at 1 pm and commenced his arguments in support of the trial court’s February 3 verdict. He referred to statements from witnesses, claiming that Bushra had not observed the iddat period and that her marriage with Imran was "fake".

After presenting preliminary arguments, Abbasi requested an adjournment until the first week of May. Counsels for the couple, including Salman Akram Raja, strongly opposed the request, arguing that the arguments could be completed within a few hours.

Raja recalled that the trial court had held continuous hearings and delivered a verdict within a month. However, Maneka’s lawyer insisted that he was occupied with other cases and required more time. The court adjourned until April 24, amid protests from counsels representing the PTI founder.