Lawyer raises objection on judge adjudicating £180m graft case

ISLAMABAD:

Lawyers of former prime minister Imran Khan and his spouse on Friday raised objections to the new judge who will now preside over the £180 million corruption case.

Islamabad Accountability Court-I Judge Nasir Javed Rana was previously hearing the case but stepped down on Thursday after completing his 3-year deputation period.

The Ministry of Law and Justice assigned additional responsibility of Accountability Court-I to Judge Muhammad Ali Warraich of Accountability Court-II for a period of three months.

On Friday, when Judge Warraich resumed hearing the case at Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail, Imran’s lawyers objected, stating that the judge could not hear the reference.

Barrister Salman Safdar argued that the Ministry of Law and Justice's notification regarding the appointment of the new judge was incorrect, and that the judge of Accountability Court-II cannot hear the case with the additional charge of Accountability Court-I.

The prosecution team also presented their arguments regarding the appointment of the new judge. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the hearing until June 11 and requested further arguments on that date.

During the hearing, no witness statements were recorded or cross-examinations conducted. An introductory session was held between the prosecution team and the defense lawyers with the new judge. Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi were also present in court during the hearing.

Iddat case

An Islamabad court has once again issued notices to the parties involved in the appeal filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan regarding the early scheduling of hearings against his sentence in the Iddat Nikah case.

Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Muhammad Afzal Majoka presided over the hearing on Friday.

During the session, Imran submitted a request for an expedited hearing of the appeals and the suspension of the sentence.

The lawyer requested the court to also consider the complainant's behaviour. The court responded that a notice was issued to the complainant in the last hearing; if they do not wish to attend, the court will proceed with the case.

The court noted that it could not fix the appeal solely for Bushra Bibi, as doing so would reveal the court's stance. The court would be in a better position if appeals were filed by both Bushra Bibi and the PTI founder.

Lawyer Niazullah Niazi argued that the court could, using its powers, schedule the hearings for both the PTI founder and Bushra Bibi together, despite the PTI founder also submitting a separate request.

The judge remarked that a request for an early hearing had come from one of the accused and stressed the need to maintain balance. He pointed out that the PTI founder’s application was submitted on plain paper and required an affidavit to be attached.

The court instructed that an affidavit be attached with the request to schedule the PTI founder’s appeals for an early hearing and suspension of the sentence, issuing notices to the involved parties.

The court has called for arguments on these applications on June 11.  The main appeal in the case is scheduled for hearing on June 25.