The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is currently hearing the plea of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, who is seeking the suspension of his three-year jail term in the Toshakhana case. On August 5, a trial court in Islamabad convicted Imran Khan in a case filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for concealing details of state gifts. The conviction resulted in a three-year jail term and a five-year disqualification from contesting general elections.
Imran Khan subsequently filed an appeal in the high court against his conviction. He also approached the Supreme Court (SC) against the IHC’s decision to remand the case back to the trial court judge. Last week, the Supreme Court acknowledged procedural defects in Imran Khan’s conviction but decided to wait for the IHC’s decision on his plea. The Pakistan Bar Council expressed its disapproval of the court’s observations, stating that there should be no interference in matters pending before the subordinate judiciary.
In the previous IHC hearing, the court adjourned the case due to the absence of the ECP lawyer. This led to dissatisfaction from Imran Khan’s counsel, who expressed the intention not to appear at the next hearing. However, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq assured that he would decide on the matter, even if no one appeared in court.
At the current hearing, a division bench comprising Justice Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri is presiding over the case, with both parties’ counsels present. The court announced that it would make a decision on Imran Khan’s plea today.
During the hearing, the ECP lawyer presented arguments against the suspension of Imran Khan’s jail sentence. He referred to various laws and past court verdicts, including a plea from India’s Rahul Gandhi, which was rejected. The ECP lawyer argued that while he did not oppose the appeal to suspend the sentence, it was necessary to issue a notice to the government before proceeding with the appeal. He also emphasized the importance of including the state as a respondent in the case.
In response, Justice Farooq questioned the need to make the state a respondent, as the case was a private complaint filed by the ECP against Imran Khan. The judge noted that in cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), there is no presence of a public prosecutor. The ECP lawyer argued that the mention of the state was necessary, as the Code of Criminal Procedure uses the word “state.”
Imran Khan filed a petition in the IHC against the trial court’s verdict, claiming that it was biased and should be set aside. The petition highlighted various grounds for appeal, including the alleged pre-disposed mind of the trial court judge, the denial of a fair chance to present arguments, and the violation of previous court orders. The petition requested the court to set aside the verdict, declare Imran Khan’s conviction and sentence illegal, and acquit him of the charges.
The Toshakhana case, based on a criminal complaint by the ECP, accused Imran Khan of concealing details about gifts he retained from the Toshakhana during his time as the prime minister. The ECP found that Imran Khan had made false statements and incorrect declarations regarding the gifts, resulting in his disqualification. The case has faced several legal challenges and is currently being heard in the IHC.