ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved its verdict in the petitions of Imran Khan, chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the Toshakhana case, which is likely to be announced today (Friday).
A single bench of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, on Thursday, heard Imran’s petitions challenging the admissibility of the Toshakhana case, transfer of the case to another judge, and challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court and reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments.
Earlier, Khan filed another petition challenging the additional district and sessions court’s order of abolishing his right of defence in the Toshakhana case. Imran moved the IHC against the order, requesting it to declare the trial court’s order null and void and restoring his right of defence.
A day earlier, the trial court - hearing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s plea against the chairman PTI for “deliberately concealing” the gifts he retained from the Toshakhana during his tenure as the prime minister - in Islamabad had rejected the witness list presented by the PTI chief, terming the witnesses irrelevant to the case.
During the hearing, Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Haris informed the court that the trial court cannot give a final decision until a decision is taken on the request to transfer the case to another court. He added that they have submitted the list of witnesses to the court and said that the witnesses could not be available in 24 hours. He further said that not even a single day was given to present the witness.
Commenting on the matter related to an alleged Facebook post of the judge, Humayun Dilawar against the PTI chief, the IHC chief justice said that a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) report regarding the matter has been received, which stated that the post in question was not posted on the judge’s Facebook account.
In this regard, the FIA submitted its technical analysis report to the IHC which cast doubt on the authenticity of three screenshots of Facebook posts allegedly posted by the judge against Imran Khan. This finding raises questions about the authenticity of screenshots, which were submitted to the high court by the PTI.
The screenshots alleged that judge Dilawar disliked the PTI chairman and had made derogatory remarks about him on social networking platform. The report found that three posts do not exist on judge Dilawar’s Facebook account. It also found that the screenshots do not have URLs, which are automatically assigned to each profile, page, and post on Facebook.
At this juncture, Haris objected saying that how can a unilateral report be accepted? He said that the trial court recorded the PTI chairman’s statement under Section 342 and they had submitted a list of witnesses to the court and asked one day to produce the witnesses. He added that the court ended our right to defence and asked to present final arguments.
The counsel continued that he did not understand why the court wanted a daily hearing of the case? He told that the judge said, “I will reserve decision if you do not present your final arguments.
Haris argued that it exposes the prejudice of the judge and the trial court could not give its decision until the verdict on the transfer application is announced. He maintained, “We have also challenged the trial court’s order against our right to defence.”
The IHC chief justice said that you have filed a petition about “prejudice” of the trial court’s judge and you are saying that a daily hearing of case, demonstrates prejudice of the judge. Imran’s counsel said that the orders of the trial court demonstrate bias.
Justice Aamersaid that your transfer petition is based on partiality, questioningis the daily hearing of the case by the judge, the bias. Haris requested the court to restrain the trial court from further hearing of the case.
The IHC CJ remarked that he also wished a daily hearing of cases, but the accused should be given a fair trial. Subsequently, the court reserved its verdict on all the petitions filed by Imran.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023