Connect with us

Politics

Cipher case: IHC reserves verdict on Imran Khan’s plea against trial in Attock jail

Published

on

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday reserved a verdict on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition challenging the Law Ministry’s notification to hold his trial in Attock jail in a cipher case. 

The deposed prime minister — who is in judicial custody till September 13 in the cipher case — filed a plea in the IHC against the law ministry’s notification through his counsel Sher Afzal Marwat. 

Khan has been imprisoned in the prison since his conviction in the Toshakhana case on August 5 for failing to properly declare gifts he received while in office.

The IHC had overturned a lower court’s decision to jail him for three years with an Rs100,000 fine — a judgment that kept him from contesting upcoming elections — he remains behind bars due to his judicial remand in the cipher case. 

On August 18, Khan was booked under the Official Secrets Act 1923 in the cipher case after the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) invoked Section 5 of the said law.

The counter-terrorism wing of the FIA had registered the case against the former premier after ascertaining his deliberate involvement in misusing the classified document following a probe.

Subsequently, a special court was established under the Official Secrets Act which sent Khan on judicial remand till August 30, later extending it to 14 days till September 13. 

In his petition, the PTI chief requested the court to declare the notification null and void as it was “illegal” to shift the court to Attock jail. 

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq reserved the verdict on the plea challenging the ministry’s notification after hearing the arguments today. The court had sought an explanation from the respondents on the notice. 

‘One-time permission’

At the outset of the hearing, Additional Attorney General Munawar Iqbal Duggal told the court that the cipher’s hearing in Attock jail was a one-time permission. 

“The hearing on the case was held in [Attock] jail on August 30,” he said, adding that the ministry had also issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) regarding the holding of trial in the prison.

Justice Farooq remarked that the jail trial is not unusual and inquired about its procedure.

To which, the prosecutor said that the notification regarding moving the court to Attock jail was issued as per the law.

The court asked what would happen if the notification was issued again. “It has to be decided under what authority can the notification be issued,” the IHC judge observed.

PTI lawyer Sher Afzal Marwat said the notification was based on ill intent.

“The application has not become ineffective, the court has to decide notification’s validity,” he remarked.

Advocate Marwat said that another verdict has been reserved on one of their pleas, urging the court to announce the decision.

To which, IHC Chief Justice Farooq assured the PTI lawyer that the court would decide on the matter.

Cable gate

The controversy first emerged on March 27, 2022, when Khan — just days before his ouster in April 2022 — brandished a letter, claiming that it was a cipher from a foreign nation, which mentioned that his government should be removed from power.

He did not reveal the contents of the letter nor mention the name of the nation that had sent it. But a few days later, he named the United States and said that Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs Donald Lu had sought his removal.

The cipher was about former Pakistan ambassador to the US Asad Majeed’s meeting with Lu.

The former prime minister, claiming that he was reading contents from the cipher, said that “all will be forgiven for Pakistan if Imran Khan is removed from power”.

Then on March 31, the National Security Committee (NSC) took up the matter and decided to issue a “strong demarche” to the country for its “blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan”.

Later, after his removal, then-prime minister Shehbaz Sharif convened a meeting of the NSC, which came to the conclusion that it had found no evidence of a foreign conspiracy in the cipher.

The cipher case against the former premier became serious after his principal secretary Azam Khan stated before a magistrate as well as the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) that the former PM had used the US cipher for his ‘political gains’ and to avert a vote of no-confidence against him.

The former bureaucrat, in his confession, said when he provided the ex-premier with the cipher, he was “euphoric” and termed the language a “US blunder”. The former prime minister, according to Azam, then said that the cable could be used for “creating a narrative against establishment and opposition”.

Azam said the US cipher was used in political gatherings by the PTI chairman, despite his advice to him to avoid such acts. He mentioned that the former prime minister also told him that the cipher could be used to divert the public’s attention towards “foreign involvement” in the opposition’s no-confidence motion.

Latest News

Today, 190 million pounds in NAB reference cases and cypher will be heard by the IHC.

Published

on

By

The founder of Pakistan, Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), has filed a bail petition against a 190 million-pound NAB reference, and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to hold a hearing today.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC and Justice Tariq Mehmmod Jahangiri, the other member of the two-member bench, will hear the matter promptly at 12 p.m.

Presenting the arguments before the court will be the prosecutor from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) during the hearings.

In addition, today is scheduled for the hearing of the petitions filed by Shah Mehmood Qureshi and PTI founder Imran Khan opposing indictment in the cypher case.

At precisely 2 pm, the cypher case hearing will be presided over by a second two-member bench made up of CJ Aamer Farooq and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb.

Here, the prosecution’s arguments will be made in front of the bench by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) prosecutor.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

To discuss privatisation with the government, Bilawal establishes a committee.

Published

on

By

Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has formed a committee to discuss privatisation concerns with the government.

Sherry Rehman, Syed Naveed Qamar, and Saleem Mandviwalla are among the committee members, according to a notification released by the PPP Chairman’s Secretariat.

The coalition administration has already established a panel to actively pursue the privatisation of state-owned firms (SOEs), such as Pakistan Steel Mills and Pakistan International Airlines.

To allow the government to sell PIA’s fifty-one percent of the company, the Privatisation Commission called for bids from interested parties in April.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

Supreme Court halts PHC and ECP decisions regarding reserved seats

Published

on

By

On Monday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court (PHC) were suspended by the Supreme Court, even as they accepted the plea of the Sunni Ittehad Council for a hearing. The ECP had decided to award the reserved seats of SIC to other political parties.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the people’s mandate should be appropriately represented in the Parliament as the proceedings resumed following a short interim.

Let me explain what the Election Commission has truly done, stated the Council of the ECP. We only dispersed the reserved seats once. No new distribution of them was made.

The court, Justice Shah said, was more interested in following the Constitution than in what the Election Commission had done. Giving other parties more seats isn’t it against the idea of proportionality, Justice Shah questioned.

Seats were unfairly awarded to other parties, according to Justice Athar Minallah. Even after losing the electoral symbol, a party could still run for office, according to his observation.

In order to determine whether the case would be handled by the same bench or a larger bench would be established to hear it, the Supreme Court then forwarded the reserved seat subject to the Judges Committee.

The Pakistani Election Commission received applications from the opposing parties on March 4 and decided to utilise a proportional representation process to assign seats to political parties based on the number of seats each party won. This meant that seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain empty.

The PTI-backed SIC lost 77 reserved seats as a result of the development, including two women’s seats in the Sindh Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the National Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, and twenty-seven women’s seats in the Punjab Assembly; all totaling twenty-three seats.

Additionally, pleas for women’s and minorities’ reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were denied by the Peshawar High Court.In its challenge, the party said that SIC should not have been granted reserved seats for women and minorities by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Previous steps

In a case involving the refusal to provide the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats, the appeal court had previously dismissed the federal government’s challenge to the three-member bench.

An appeal for reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council is being heard by a three-judge panel led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah.

The federal government asked the court to form a larger bench so that more people could hear the matter when the hearing got underway. Adviser General Aamir Rahman, speaking for the federal government, stated that the appeals could only be heard by a larger bench. But the objection on the bench was dismissed by the court.

Situated on reserved seats, the female parliamentarians expressed disapproval of the bench as well. Under the Practice and Procedures Act, only a five-member bench could hear the issue, according to the attorney for the female parliamentarians. The dispute involved the interpretation of Article 51 of the Constitution.

Under Article 185 of the Constitution, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the current case was being handled as an appeal. Under Article 184/3, the current case was not filed. Court decisions on the admissibility of appeals were left up to the court, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

In addition, he said, a larger bench may be assembled to hear the case if it was determined that the case could be maintained.

Arguments made by Faisal Siddiqui the Advocate

Prominent Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer Faisal Siddiqui began putting forth the points. Following the February 8 general elections, Siddiqui announced that PTI’s returned candidates became members of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

There were still seven candidates in the National Assembly who had independent status, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
If PTI was a registered political party, Justice Athar Minallah questioned.

Siddiqui, the advocate, confirmed that PTI was a legally recognised political party. Although it wasn’t present during the election, Justice Shah noted that it was a registered political party.

Can you tell me how many days independent members have to join a party? said Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. A political party must be joined by independent members of the National Assembly within three days, according to Siddiqui. Justice Minallah asked,

“Will candidates of a political party forfeit their right to represent if the party lacks an electoral symbol?” A political party might transform into a parliamentary party by running for office, Siddiqui informed the court.

There is also the case where a political party holds elections yet does not allow its successful candidates to leave. What mechanism is used to allocate reserved seats among political parties, Justice Shah inquired?

Justice Shah enquired, “Will the political party take reserved seats according to the number of seats won or can it take more? According to Siddiqui, no political party is allowed to have more reserved seats than their share.

After upon, the Supreme Court quickly postponed the case hearing till 11:30 while summoning Election Commission representatives with documentation.

Continue Reading

Trending