The Islamabad High Court has granted Imran Khan’s appeal on the current jail trial related to the cipher case. They ruled that the notification on August 29, which started the detention trial, was improper.
The court has approved Imran Khan’s intra-court appeal, issuing a previously reserved verdict on both the intra-court appeal challenging the jail trial and the selection of a judge for the PTI Chairman.
Concurrently, the Islamabad High Court deemed the notification for the prison trial on August 29 to be null and void, with no retroactive effect.
Previously, the case was presided over by Justices Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb and Taman Rifat Imtiaz, with Salman Akram Raja representing PTI Chairman as the lawyer. Attorney General Mansoor Awan and the FIA prosecution team were also present in the courtroom.
When Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb questioned about the preliminary steps for a jail trial, Chairman PTI’s lawyer, Salman Akram Raja, began his arguments. Raja focused on the procedural concerns, underlining that, according to High Court norms, the judge’s approval is required for a jail trial.
The applicable judge may be from the High Court, District Magistrate, or Commissioner, and the relevant ministry must be notified via proper channels.
Read: The Biggest Announcement from Hareem Shah
Raja further stated that the concerned judge must clarify the reasoning behind the decision in accordance with High Court guidelines guiding the full jail trial procedure. He stated that the first decision of the judge is crucial in commencing a jail trial.
Contrary to popular belief, he explained that the judge’s statement is not a formal decision or order, but rather reflects the judge’s careful thinking. The judge’s discernment, according to Raja, is the basic stage in defining the route of a jail trial.
Imran Khan’s counsel argued that for a jail trial, the judge should issue a specific order based on specific reasons. Following that, the federal government must approve it, usually at the request of the chief commissioner.
It was highlighted that the federal government must obtain cabinet approval. As a result, it is necessary to notify the High Court.
The lawyer posed a striking issue, querying why his client was subjected to a jail trial while prior prime leaders had undergone open trials. This drew attention to a perceived contradiction or inequality in the treatment of various leaders, requiring a review of the decision-making process.
Salman Akram Raja pointed out a big gap in the paperwork from August 29, underlining the lack of any explanation for why the jail trial was initiated. Even if one accepts that the trial judge initiated the procedure, Raja claims that the ensuing procedural steps were left unfilled.
Furthermore, he stated that clearance from the federal cabinet is required for a prison trial. In this case, such consent was not obtained prior to November 12.
In answer to Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb’s inquiry concerning the presence of any judicial orders, Raja emphasized that no judicial orders had been issued to date in compliance with the rules. He went on to say that on August 16, remand proceedings were held in open court, and that the trial was then moved to the jail.
Raja thought that the initial request for a jail trial was most likely made by the prosecution, emphasizing the significance of protecting the accused’s rights in such situations.
Salman Akram is an actor. Raja went on to say that it should be noted that following the procedure for Cabinet clearance from November 12 renders the earlier activities illegitimate. Raja used Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain’s November 8 letter to back up his claim.
He claimed that examining the text of the November letter provides a clearer perspective. The letter specifically stated that the trial had been granted, and the Cabinet permission letter was written while the intra-court appeal was still proceeding.
Raja informed the court that the Cabinet Division drafted the summary on November 12, and that the notification for the detention trial was officially issued the next day, November 13. This timeline was created to highlight the sequence of events as well as the changing circumstances surrounding the case.
Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb sought clarification, wondering if the November 13 announcement met a legal need. Salman Akram Raja responded by claiming that the judge had not requested clearance for the jail trial in the preceding letter, making it unclear how the cabinet could sanction it.
Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb pressed Raja further, asking if the November 13 announcement was intended to meet a legal requirement. According to Article 352, the November 13 notification does not apply retroactively to previous proceedings, according to Raja.
When asked if he thought the November 13 notification met legal standards, Raja indicated suspicion, saying he didn’t. He highlighted that, in the absence of a legal order, the cabinet’s permission is a vital requirement, and there is currently no such judicial order.
To repeat, on September 30, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) filed a challan in federal court, ostensibly requesting that Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi provide the classified text of the cipher, citing Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act.
Imran Khan was named as the primary suspect in the investigation regarding the cipher’s loss.The FIA’s challan listed 27 witnesses, with Azam Khan as the main witness. Azam Khan has already testified against Imran Khan to the FIA.
You can also read Saba Qamar Finally Speak about Her Husband
FAQs
What is the basis of the jail trial against Imran Khan?
What are the specific charges against Imran Khan in the cipher case?
Why did the Islamabad High Court accept Imran Khan’s intra-court appeal?
What arguments were presented by Imran Khan’s lawyer during the court proceedings?
Why is there controversy surrounding the November 13 notification?