Toshakhana case
IHC issues notice against court’s decision to reject list of witnesses; asks FIA to probe judge’s alleged post
ISLAMABAD
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday declared the sessions court’s maintainability verdict in the Toshakhana case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan “void”.
IHC Chief Justice Amir Farooq gave the court’s ruling on eight petitions of the PTI chairman after arguments by both parties — which were completed yesterday while the judgment was reserved.
The court, however, rejected the PTI chairman’s request to transfer the case to another court and said that Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar would hear the case.
The IHC today also issued a notice against the court’s decision to reject the list of witnesses.
Regarding the district and session judge’s alleged Facebook post, the court directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to probe into the issue.
On October 21, 2022, the Election Commission of Pakistan maintained that the former prime minister made “false statements and incorrect declarations” about the gifts and disqualified him under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution.
Subsequently, the election watchdog moved the sessions court to the federal capital. It sought criminal proceedings against the PTI chief for allegedly misleading the ECP regarding gifts received from foreign dignitaries while he was in office.
The PTI chairman was indicted in the case on May 10, while his petition to declare the case inadmissible was rejected by the court.
On July 4, the IHC overturned the same ruling and directed the sessions court to hear the petitioner and decide the matter within seven days. On July 8, ADSJ Humayun Dilawar declared the Toshakhana case against Khan as maintainable, which was again challenged in the IHC. Meanwhile, the trial continued at the court and was about to conclude soon.
During the proceedings, Khan’s lawyers also accused the presiding judge of bias on the basis of his Facebook posts and sought the transfer of the case.
On August 2, the trial court also rejected the PTI chairman’s witnesses, stating that he failed to prove their “relevance” in the criminal proceedings against him. It was also challenged in the high court.
Explanation for rehearing
Citing the repeated adjournments sought by Khan during the duration of the trial, the bench ruled that there was while the case should be reheard, there was no need for the case to be transferred to a different court.
“The order […] shows that a number of opportunities were provided to the petitioner to address arguments but adjournments were sought, hence the matter was decided in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioner.” “…so the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in saying that he has been condemned unheard and it would be only appropriate to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for decision afresh,” the order mentioned.
The order mentioned that it is not essential that the matter be sent to a different judge, emphasising that remitting the matter to a different jurist can be regarded as a matter of propriety and not a principle of law.
“However, in the instant case even remanding the matter to a different court is not mandated.”
