The government has challenged in the Supreme Court the acquittal of former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in the cipher case.
The interior ministry has raised objections against the decision of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), believing it will succeed. The PTI makes its own claim.
The government move shows the state is not ready to let Khan come out of jail. It wants to keep him booked without caring what the courts are deciding. Many believe the government stance may prove a setback for the PTI that was waiting Khan’s release.
The IHC doesn’t have the authority to decide on appeals challenging the conviction of Khan and Qureshi in the cipher case, argues the Interior Ministry. The petition says that the Official Secrets Act of 1923 does not include provisions for filing an appeal against the judgment of a special court that has convicted them both.
It argued that the IIHC did not have the authority to hear the duo’s appeals in the case and that this court had ignored the prosecution’s overwhelming evidence. The ministry requested that its appeal be admitted stating that it is a well-established legal principle that if a court finds that a trial was not conducted fairly, the only recourse under the law is to send the case back to the trial court for a fair opportunity.
It contended that the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence and the admission by the accused is enough to establish the case beyond any doubt. Stating further it said the prosecution provided documentary evidence and forensic analysis, which were not refuted during cross-examination. It also claimed that the judgment acquitting the respondents was not sustainable.
“The judgment or short order in question does not provide any basis for the acquittal of the respondent. It is not even observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt,” it said. “It is respectfully submitted that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) did not properly consider the evidence available on record as well as the admission of the accused while acquitting the respondents in this case.” The impugned judgment is not legally sustainable under the law, the appeal said. It requested the top court to schedule the appeal for a hearing. Adding more the interior ministry said that the Official Secrets Act of 1923 does not include provisions for filing an appeal against the judgment of a special court judge.
The cipher case stems from Khan’s public display of a paper during a rally in Islamabad on March 27, 2022, claiming it as evidence of an “international conspiracy” before a vote of no confidence led to his government’s ouster. On January 30, a special court established under the OSA sentenced both Khan and Qureshi to 10 years imprisonment in this case. Later, both leaders appealed against the verdict in the IHC.
The IHC acquitted them on June 3, suspending their 10-year sentence.
The government said that the IHC lacked the jurisdiction or power to create rights not provided by the Constitution or a validly enacted law. It also referenced the principle that courts cannot go beyond their jurisdiction and interpret laws in ways not intended by the legislature, as this would exceed their powers under the Constitution and constitute an order without jurisdiction. During the trial, it was reported that Khan and Qureshi were uncooperative. It was proven from the record that both accused had filed 65 different pleas during the trial. Additionally, witnesses appeared before the court during the case, but the accused’s lawyers did not cross-examine them. The defendants’ behavior was uncooperative throughout the trial, and they made every effort to delay the proceedings of the case.
The case was adjourned multiple times at the request of the defendants or their lawyers. Witnesses were present in court, but their cross-examination was not conducted by the defense lawyers. The trial court appointed defense lawyers at the state’s expense, and they completed the trial. The defendants attempted to obstruct justice by delaying the proceedings indefinitely, the appeal added that noting of it was taken into account by the IHC. This appeal was instituted through Advocate Mudassar Hussain Malik on behalf of the interior ministry under Article 185, requesting the court to overturn the June 3 order, in which an IHC division bench consisting of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had acquitted the PTI leaders after accepting appeals against their convictions in the cipher case.
Besides, OSA 1923 is not a scheduled offense of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958. Section 13 (6) of OSA empowers the appropriate government to direct that the procedure for the trial of an offense under Sections 5 and 9 will be as prescribed for offenses under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958. Since the special law will have the overriding effect on the general law, the criminal procedure code is not applicable in case of the accused is tried for offences under OSA, it added.
Iddat Case
The IHC has ordered additional sessions judge Islamabad Muhammad Afzal to decide the Iddat case in 10 days on pleas by Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi for the suspension of their sentence in this case. Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb of the IHC also ordered the sessions court to decide on their pleas against their convictions in the case in one month. Khan and his wife were convicted by a senior civil judge on February 3 for contracting marriage during Bushra Bibi’s Iddat period.
They were awarded seven years jail sentence with a fine of Rs. 500,000 each. They challenged the conviction before district and sessions judge Shahrukh Arjumand, who at the orders of the IHC shifted this case to the court of additional sessions judge Muhammad Afzal at the time when the court was scheduled to announce the final verdict on the said appeals. Complainant Khawar Maneka expressed a lack of confidence in the court of Judge Arjumand twice. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of additional district and sessions judge Mohammad Afzal. Later the counsel for Bushra Bibi filed a petition before the IHC seeking her release on bail and suspension of her sentence. Hearing the arguments of her counsel on the petition a day ago, Justice Aurangzeb observed that that the reason for which Judge Arjumand had recused himself was not justified. The court ordered Judge Afzal to deliver an order in the case within 10 days on the pleas of suspension of sentence of the PTI founder and his spouse. He also directed the judge to decide upon the primary appeals against the convictions within the month. It is important to note that the IHC earlier has also suspended the sentence of Khan and his wife in the Toshakhana reference case. On 31 January 2024, a court convicted and sentenced both Khan and his wife to 14 years imprisonment and ordered them to pay a fine of about 1.5 billion rupees. Earlier six judges of the IJC also penned a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council alleging the executive and intelligence apparatuses influencing the judges in judicial matters. The Supreme Court is hearing this case.
IHC restrained FIA from taking any action against PTI leaders
The IHC restrained the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from taking any action against the PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Spokesperson Rauf Hassan in the video case. IHC’s Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani gave the directives in his written order against the summons of PTI leaders issued by the FIA in the case of a controversial post on the social media platform ‘X’ from the handle of PTI founder. The court directed both the said leaders to record their statements before the FIA. The court also issued a notice to the FIA and sought a reply by June 25. Afterward both the leaders went to the office of the FIA and recorded their statements. Now the question is what can happen to the recorded statements when the court has already directed the Agency from taking any action against both these leaders?
(By Rana Kashif)
