The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has approved the appeals filed by former Prime Minister Imran Khan, his spouse Bushra Bibi, and former Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi regarding their convictions in the cipher and Toshakhana cases, as reported by media.
The court has requested for all the records related to the trial court proceedings by March 7. Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi were handed 10-year prison sentences by a special court in the cipher case. In the Toshakhana reference, Imran Khan and his spouse were each sentenced to 14 years in jail.
The cipher case involves the revelation of a confidential cable sent to Islamabad by Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington in early 2022. Both Imran and Shah Mahmood have been convicted of disclosing the document to the public.
The document in question detailed a meeting held on March 7, 2022, between US State Department officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and the former Pakistani ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed Khan.
The division bench consisting of IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard both appeals. Barrister Syed Ali Zafar and Barrister Salman Safdar were the legal representation of Imran Khan in the cipher case.
Barrister Safdar contended that there were significant irregularities in the procedure utilized to convict the PTI leaders in the cipher case. He emphasized that the Special Court (Official Secrets Act) circumvented legal procedures and denied Imran Khan and Mehmood Qureshi the legal remedies available for their defense.
According to the appeal, the arrest of Imran Khan and the hearing for remand took place in the “most objectionable, clandestine, and secretive manner” on Aug 16 last year. The prosecution failed to provide the full record, and the judge hastily indicted the PTI leaders.
Although the appeal noted several irregularities, an IHC bench annulled the proceedings twice. Nonetheless, it asserted that Judge Abual Hasnat Zulqarnain concluded the trial without adhering to the essential procedural prerequisites.
The appeal claimed that the ex-PM and his legal counsel “extended all the cooperation” to the trial court and did not seek unnecessary adjournment. But the judge did not ensure a fair trial, as “the proceedings were hurried through by the court in breakneck speed for reasons known only to the court itself”. It argued that the trial was “concluded in less than 20 days”.
Despite strong resistance by the PTI leaders, the court-appointed state counsel for Imran Khan and Mehmood Qureshi. This step was taken as one of the defense attorneys couldn’t attend the court session because he had to urgently travel to Lahore for dental surgery.
Both leaders asked the court to contact their main counsel for assistance during cross-examination, but the trial court declined to wait for him. The appeal alleged that the cipher case trial was subsequently moved to a “confidential chamber” and swiftly concluded.
The IHC division bench also considered applications requesting the suspension of their sentences pending the final adjudication of the primary appeals against their conviction. The bench dismissed the objections to the petitions raised by the registrar’s office. In the Toshakhana case, Barrister Zafar contended that an accountability court convicted the former PM and his spouse without affording them the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
While serving notices to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for the cipher case and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for the Toshakhana reference, the high court later postponed further proceedings on the appeals and applications until March 7.
Additionally, the IHC bench, headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, issued a notice to the NAB regarding the PTI founder and his wife’s plea for post-arrest bail in the £190 million corruption case.
Advocate Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, representing the petitioners, argued that the trial court’s decision to reject the bail applications of the petitioners was ‘faulty’ and urged the IHC bench to grant the bail requests.
