Connect with us

Politics

LHC approves Imran Khan’s protective bail plea after hours-long ruckus for in-person appearance

Published

on

Marking an end to the hours-long ruckus created inside the court premises, the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday approved Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s protective bail plea in a case pertaining to protests outside the ECP — Election Commission of Pakistan.

After several notices served to Khan, the PTI chairman ‘finally’ appeared before the LHC to present himself in two separate hearings.

The LHC had adjourned the hearing once again till 7:30pm, directing the security officials to pave way for the PTI chief to reach courtroom.

Despite reaching LHC premises the disposed prime minister could not appear before the court as his convoy is surrounded by massive number of party supporters.

The LHC had granted the former prime minister the last few minutes to present himself before the court after the initial deadline of 5pm lapsed, warning lawyers that the judges would leave if the former prime minister won’t reach the courtroom in the given time.

Khan was directed to appear before the court in person by Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh for hearing his protective bail petition in a case pertaining to protests outside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The LHC had noted the discrepancy in the documents last week during the hearing of a protective bail plea of Khan, who was unwilling to appear in court due to security concerns.

Today’s hearing

After multiple adjournments, a two member bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) — headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi — resumed hearing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s bail plea.

Advocate Khawaja Tariq Rahim, Khan’s counsel, apprised the bench that the former prime minister was present in the court’s premises and pleaded with the court to mark the attendance of the wounded leader in his vehicle.

At this, Justice Najafi directed the counsel to produce his client before the court as he has reached the court’s premises.

Referring to the rush inside the court’s premises, the lawyer said that Khan’s plaster would damage if someone pushes him.

“Suspect’s appearance in court is mandatory for interim bail,” remarked the judge.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing till 7:30pm.

Khan’s counsel, in view of the PTI’s workers massive rush inside the court’s premises, pleaded with the court to mark the attendance of the injured leader in his vehicle but the court turned down the request.

Earlier in the day, when the hearing resumed today after multiple suspensions, Advocate Khawaja Tariq Rahim, counsel for the former prime minister, admitted that the bail petition was not signed by the PTI chief.

Taking note of Imran Khan’s absence despite orders at the outset of the hearing, Justice Sheikh inquired where the PTI chief was as he was asked to appear in court at 2pm.

Khan’s lawyer told the court that his client was on his way and was late due to security issues.

Justice Sheikh told the counsel that resolving the security issues was not his problem and then adjourned the hearing once again.

When the hearing resumed again, lawyer Khawaja Tariq Rahim said that there was traffic on Mall Road which is why the PTI chief was late. He added that the police had communicated to them that Mall Road would remain free from traffic but there was a traffic jam.

The lawyer then told the court that his client does not see himself “bigger than the high court”, adding that the PTI chief will come but arrangements need to be made.

When the judge pressed the counsel to explain the reasons why his client is not appearing, the lawyer said a perception is being created that Imran Khan doesn’t want to appear before the court.

“Let me issue a show cause notice and fix a date after three weeks,” the judge remarked. At this, the counsel said Khan will come tomorrow.

“Not this early,” the judge responded, asking the counsel to let him write down the order as “you are making fun of law”.

The LHC judge noted, “Imran Khan is a leader, a role model and should remain so.”

At this, the counsel promised to produce Imran Khan by 5pm. The judge then said, “This is the last chance for Imran Khan as the court had already granted him concession”.

LHC orders Khan to appear before it on Feb 20

The PTI chief was summoned by the court when it had convened last week and noticed the discrepancy in the petition he had filed.

The former prime minister was summoned by the court when he approached LHC to seek bail in a terror case registered against him over alleged vandalism during the protests in Islamabad against his disqualification by the ECP. However, he was unwilling to appear due to security concerns.

Khan had moved the high court after an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad cancelled his bail over non-appearance.

Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh had directed the PTI chief to appear in person in the case but he failed to do so despite multiple adjournments during the last hearing.

During the course of the hearing, Khan’s lawyer Siddique asked the court that he will be withdrawing the petition.

But Justice Sheikh rejected the request as he had noticed that there are different signs of Khan on the affidavit and power of attorney.

The judge then took notice of the different signatures and adjourned the hearing briefly.

When the court reconvened Khan’s lawyer asked for further time. At this, the court adjourned the hearing till February 20 (today).

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