Substance in Imran's claim in graft case: IHC

Imran Khan had requested Islamabad Accountability Court-I to acquit him in corruption reference in view of amended law

ISLAMABAD:

The capital's high court has noted that there is "substance" in former prime minister Imran Khan's claim that law governing the country's top graft buster has undergone a change during pendency of the trial and the same is to be kept in mind while deciding the fate of the £190m corruption case.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday issued its written order for its last week proceedings on a plea filed by Imran Khan against dismissal of his acquittal request.

Imran had contended that the £190m corruption case was initiated on the basis of a meeting of the federal cabinet while he served as the prime minister and that after an amendment in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999—the law that governs the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) decisions taken by the cabinet are protected.

He had requested Islamabad Accountability Court-I to acquit him in the corruption reference in view of the amended law. The accountability court rejected the plea on September 12.

Imran challenged the trial court's order in the IHC, whose division bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Auragnzeb, on November 7 ordered the court to rehear the plea.

In its 11-page written order, the IHC noted that the petitioners' version that NAO, 1999 underwent a change during pendency of trial has substance and the same is to be kept in mind while deciding the fate of the reference.

It noted that the Supreme Court has upheld the amendments in the NAO, 1999 and now the decisions of the cabinet and the federal government are immune from prosecution except where there is allegation and proof of personal gain and such aspects of the matter could only be decided after evaluation of the evidence.

The order said the appropriate course of action for the trial court, in the facts and circumstances, was to perhaps keep the matter pending and decide the same at an appropriate stage, keeping in mind the dicta of the superior courts yet also safeguarding the interests and rights of the petitioners.