ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has said the evidence recorded by the trial court in the absence of Imran Khan’s lawyers in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference will carry no significance.
A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Wednesday, issued notices to the superintendent and deputy superintendent of Adiala Jail directing to ensure that either of them is present on the next date of hearing.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan through advocates, Faisal Fareed Chaudhry and Naeem Haider Panjotha filed a petition against the jail authorities for not allowing them to represent Khan in the ongoing trial being held in jail in the NAB reference titled, “State vs Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi”.
The IHC’s written order noted that any proceedings held by the trial Court while the accused’s counsels were not present, the evidence recorded in the trial will carry no significance.
During the hearing, Faisal argued that he and his co-counsel were prevented from going to the courtroom in the jail on two consecutive dates of hearing i.e. 29.08.2024 and 02.09.2024.
He added that this was done despite the clear decisions by this Court in the judgment of the Division Bench reported as Imran Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2024 Islamabad 155) and by a Single Bench in orders passed in writ petitions No 4560 of 2023 (Fawad Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan) and writ petition No 1976 of 2024 (Fawad Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan) holding that a jail trial is nonetheless an open trial.
Faisal further contended that irrespective of the trial being open or closed in jail, the right of the accused to engage counsel and legal representation in the trial is a fundamental and inalienable right and that this Bench has in several orders including in writ petition No 622 of 2024 and criminal original No 185 of 2024 reiterated this right.
The IHC bench observed that contentions raised by the counsel are of serious concern regarding the right of access to justice being denied in the manner stated in the memo of this petition.
The court maintained that in case, they (lawyers) are not present day after tomorrow with full instructions and ready to answer this petition, this Court will proceed on the basis that the allegations in the petition are correct and will have no option left but to consider other alternatives such as moving the NAB Court from jail premises to another premises under the direct sight of the IHC.
It continued that as this Court is hearing another writ petition in which the same issue is involved with respect to the Prison Rules and the said petition no866 of 2024 is listed for day after tomorrow, this petition is also being listed for the said date.
Later, the bench issued notices to the respondents including jail superintendent and deputy superintendent and deferred the hearing of the case till September 6.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.