An Islamabad district and sessions court on Saturday declared a criminal complaint against former premier Imran Khan for concealing details of Toshakana gifts to be maintainable.
Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar announced the verdict that was reserved earlier as he heard the PTI chief’s plea challenging the maintainability of the said complaint sent to the trial court by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The case accused him of concealing details of state gifts.
Setting July 12 as the date for the next hearing, the court has summoned the witnesses for testimony that day, which will initiate the trial proceedings against the former premier.
Earlier this week, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had overturned the ruling of a sessions court wherein it had rejected the PTI chief’s petition to declare the Toshkhana case inadmissible.
Earlier today, Imran sought an exemption from attending the hearing, which was objected to by ECP counsel Saad Hasan.
The PTI chief’s counsel, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, then requested the court to adjourn the hearing till July 10, citing security concerns.
In response, Judge Dilawar remarked that Imran’s counsel, Khawaja Haris had not appeared in “even a single hearing” during the past three days. The judge asserted that the court had been very lenient towards the suspect.
When the hearing resumed after a break, ECP counsel Amjad Pervaiz appeared in the court along with Barrister Gohar. The ECP lawyer recalled an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order to “make a decision within a week”.
He proceeded to read out aloud the IHC order and informed the court about its directions to the trial court to resume hearing the PTI chief’s petition.
The ECP lawyer argued that an ECP officer had filed the Toshakhana case’s complaint as per Section 190 of the Elections Act 2017, which he said gave the right to file a complaint and the court had the authority to hear the case.
“Forget the ECP’s verdict — everyone has the right to lodge a complaint in the court,” Pervaiz said.
He further informed the court that a copy of the ECP’s verdict and file had been given to the PTI chairman. The lawyer argued that the commission’s “authority letter proved that the ECP directed for a complaint to be lodged”.
“Will the court throw the complaint in the dustbin or will the chance to approach the higher courts be granted?” Pervaiz asked.
He then requested the court for a break in the court proceedings, which was granted.
When the hearing resumed, continuing his arguments, the ECP lawyer stated that taking action against “corrupt practices” was the constitutional duty of the ECP.
Pervaiz said that the decision of whether the crime was proved or not would be made after the trial. “According to the law, there is no expiry date for a crime,” he added.
The ECP counsel went on to recall how the electoral body initiated action against the PTI chief, detailing that it took action when it was sent a complaint by the National Assembly’s speaker.
Then, Barrister Gohar once again requested the hearing to be adjourned, to which Judge Dilawar said that the IHC had already granted significant relief to Imran.
The lawyer responded by stating that no relief had been granted by the IHC. “The IHC referred us to your court for a hearing, and I do not agree with it,” he told the court.
Gohar argued that the PTI chief was “being deprived of his rights”. He emphasised that there was sufficient time until July 12, and any hasty decision would result in “injustice”.
He urged the court to adjourn the hearing until Monday.
The judge remarked on the absence of Advocate Haris, who he said was a “senior lawyer” and expressed disappointment as “such behaviour could not be expected from him”.
The judge also mentioned that other cases in his court had been halted after the Toshakhana case was brought before him.
The court then reserved its decision on the admissibility of the petition and dismissed Barrister Gohar’s right of hearing.
Judge Dilawar noted that although the counsel for the PTI chief was given time, no arguments were presented. The request to adjourn the proceedings until Monday was also dismissed by the court.
‘Deeply upset’ by verdict, Barrister Gohar says
Talking to the media after the hearing, PTI counsel Barrister Gohar said he was “deeply upset by this kind of verdict”, adding that “the law had been murdered”.
PTI chief’s counsel, Barrister Gohar Ali, talks to the media on Saturday. — Screengrab from video by author
He recalled the proceedings and asserted that it was his right to be heard by the court.
“You did not give us the right to be heard, then [at least] we deserve the right of rebuttal.”
Gohar went on to say that it would be a violation of the IHC orders if the session court made decisions without listening to their side.
The lawyer added that they would approach “higher forums” to challenge the verdict.
Toshakhana case
The case, filed by ruling party lawmakers, is based on a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The case alleges that Imran had “deliberately concealed” details of the gifts he retained from the Toshaskhana — a repository where presents handed to government officials from foreign officials are kept — during his time as the prime minister and proceeds from their reported sales.
Imran has faced a number of legal issues over his retention of gifts. The issue also led to his disqualification by the ECP.
On Oct 21, 2022, the ECP concluded that the former premier had indeed made “false statements and incorrect declarations” regarding the gifts.
The Toshakhana is a department under the Cabinet Division that stores gifts given to rulers and government officials by heads of other governments and foreign dignitaries. According to Toshakhana rules, gifts/presents and other such materials received by persons to whom these rules apply shall be reported to the Cabinet Division.
The watchdog’s order had said Imran stood disqualified under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution.
Subsequently, the ECP had approached the Islamabad sessions court with a copy of the complaint, seeking proceedings against Imran under criminal law for allegedly misleading officials about the gifts he received from foreign dignitaries during his tenure as the prime minister.
http://dlvr.it/SrvM77
Comments
Post a Comment