Verdict delay raises questions on judiciary's integrity

Legal experts say there is a need to end the perception that external forces are instrumental in postponement of verdi

Listen to article

ISLAMABAD:

The postponement of verdict in 190 million pounds reference for the third time in a row has not only left a question mark on the credibility of judiciary but it has also opened the floodgates of speculations that judiciary is being used as a tool to bring PTI on the negotiating table.

Former PTI minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, who is also a Supreme Court advocate, said that such postponements further shook the trust on already deluded judiciary.

However, he termed the postponement of decision in Al-Qadir case a positive development, adding the delay in the case decision coupled with some others events indicate that negotiations are heading in the right direction. The other events include PTI leaders meeting with party founder Imran Khan, issuance of a production order for Senator Ijaz Chaudhry and negotiating committee's meeting on Jan 15. Together, these events suggest a constructive approach to the talks and certainly foster a sense of optimism, he added.

Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar highlighted that informed opinion in and out of the country "holds our subordinate judiciary in very low esteem". The court's conduct has reinforced the opinion, he added.

Abraham Lincoln had coined the term "legal astonisher" in relation to the Dred Scott case. The term signifies any ludicrous judicial act, observation or decision that is against the fundamentals of justice and jurisprudence. It is a public secret that the state versus Imran Khan is actually deep state versus Imran Khan. The trial court has just corroborated that belief," said Tariq Mahmood Khokhar advocate.

Imran Khan's lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain is convinced that after the postponement of decision three times, the case proceeding has lost legitimacy.

The legal experts also said although resuming of dialogue between PTI and the government is welcoming move, there is need to end the perception that postponement of decision by accountability court is being made on account of external factors.

However, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad had different point of view as he commented that the postponement of the judgment neither undermined the concept of independence of the judiciary nor affected the credibility of a judge or judiciary. According to section 366 of CRPC, it is imperative that the presence of accused of case may be ensured while announcing the judgment but if the judge thinks that there is intentional non presence of accused, he can announce the judgment with no legal defection, he highlighted.

He added the deferment of judgment till January 17 is within the law, and he has rightly exercised his jurisdiction as given under section 366 of CRPC.

Six judges of Islamabad High Court in their letter to Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had already levelled allegations regarding the interference of executive in the judicial proceedings in high profile cases.

The letter had also mentioned about the manipulation of trial by external elements in Imran Khan cases. It is also fact that the superior judiciary fails to evolve any mechanism to end the perception that trials of political cases are being manipulated by executive authorities.

Imran Khan was convicted in three cases before general elections. Later, he was acquitted in one case while his sentence was suspended in two cases by Islamabad High Court.

In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), PTI founder Imran Khan told the accountability court that convictions against him and his family members were intended to pressurise him and prevent his participation in politics.

The evidence on record strongly suggested that the reference was filed at the direction of political opponents to extend their suffering and incarceration, he maintained.