Cipher case: special court indicts Imran Khan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi

A special court indicted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the cipher case, Aaj News reported on Monday.

The hearing was held at the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi by special court Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain.

Earlier, the PTI had filed a petition to stop the indictment. Rejecting the petitions, the judge said the hearing was fixed for indictment and indicted the PTI leaders.

The case in question is related to “misuse” of alleged contents of a diplomatic cipher, cited by ex-premier Imran as proof of an attempt to remove his government.

IHC rejects Imran Khan’s plea against jail trial

Last week, Islamabad High Court (IHC) rejected the former PM’s plea against his jail trial in the cipher case.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the reserved verdict. Disposing of the plea, the high court directed the former prime minister to approach the special court.

In its verdict, the IHC said that the jail trial was “in favour” of Imran keeping in mind security-related matters.

The bench also mentioned that Imran had voiced his reservations relating to his security “numerous times”. He added that if the PTI chairman has reservations about the jail trial, he may approach the trial court.

Cipher case background

A case was registered against Imran and PTI leader Qureshi under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

According to the copy of the FIR registered on August 15, consequent upon the conclusion of inquiry No 111/2023 upon the complaint registered in the Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW), FIA, it transpired that former prime minister namely, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, former foreign minister namely, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and their other associates are involved in the communication of information contained in the secret classified document (cipher telegram received from Parep Washington dated March 7, 2022, to secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs) to the unauthorised persons (i.e., public at large) by twisting the facts to achieve their “ulterior motives” and personal gains in a manner prejudicial to the interests of state security.