Experts divided over £190m case verdict

Legal experts are divided over the verdict of an accountability court which on Friday convicted former prime minister Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the£190 million case.

Commenting on the decision, former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said Imran's trial was conducted by a court lacking independence, competence and impartiality.

"Thus [the verdict] violates Article 10A of the Constitution and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Pakistan has ratified," he said, adding that such unfair adjudicative procedures alone are sufficient to render the trial null and void from the very beginning.

"Nasir Javed Rana (the accountability court judge) is an abhorrent anathema to the fundamental principles of law recognized by civilized nations and Islamic jurisprudence.

"He is counted amongst the worst of our judicial lepers. His judicial presence is repugnant to Pakistan's obligations and responsibilities under international law."

He said in 2005, the Supreme Court adjudged him to be "a tool of the police, having passed illegal orders, guilty of perjury and the cause of perjury by others, misconduct, absolutely unfit for judicial service" and so forth.

Khokhar said the place of trial, which was held inside a prison with restricted access to the public; the date of verdict which was changed thrice for to force a settlement upon the PTI; the state apologists' ad nauseam repetition of the precise minutiae of the judgement months before it was delivered—suggesting it was written well before the end of the trial—points to a grotesque miscarriage of justice.

"I cannot see any independent appellate forum sustaining the unsustainable," he adds.

Abdul Moiz Jaferii Advocate, however, said there was a solid case of misuse of authority to answer for here; and Imran Khan would have failed to do so even if he was afforded due process. "All he has been able to offer in his defence is that he is a cricket star and he has a philanthropic history."

He said Imran's intent to make a charitable institution cannot undo the fact that he returned the money received from a UK department—the National Crime Agency (NCA)—through a cabinet decision while also taking a piece of land and donations for a trust of his.

Jaferii said the only way Imran Khan could avoid answering these accusations was if the trial were conducted as it actually occurred—with no questions asked about the Hyde Park transaction that initiated this £190 million chain, and the trial remaining focused solely on Imran and his wife.

Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad Advocate said all facts demonstrate that Imran Khan made serious legal violations and misrepresentations in his interactions with the cabinet, the NCA, and even with the Supreme Court.

"Resultantly the former PM and his wife were not only convicted under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance; but the property acquired through this transaction was also taken back and Imran was disqualified under Section 15 for 10 years to hold any public office," he said.

However, he said, the accused have a legal right under Section 32 of the NAO to challenge the sentence of the accountability Court before a division bench of Islamabad High Court within 30 days.