Imran may meet his lawyers whenever he wants: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday ordered access of former prime minister Imran Khan to his legal team whenever he wanted to meet them.

Also, the court ordered for providing him all material related to the NAB amendments case to help him prepare for the court proceedings. Incarcerated Imran Khan participated in the court proceedings through video-link from Adiala jail.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the Intra Court Appeal (ICA), filed by the federal government, challenging the SC verdict striking down some of the amendments made by the previous coalition government (PDM) to the NAB law. Other members of the bench included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Syed Hassan Rizvi.

The court directed the Adiala jail superintendent to arrange for a meeting between the PTI founder and his lawyers, declaring that Khawaja Haris and two members of his team could meet Imran Khan whenever he wants. CJP Faez Isa told Khawaja Haris, counsel for Imran Khan, that whenever he or his associate wanted to meet Imran Khan, they could do so. If they face any problem in meeting the former premier, he should contact the attorney general for Pakistan, and send him a message.

The court also declined a request of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government, seeking live streaming of the court proceedings on the Intra-Court Appeal of the federal government. The court, by a 4-1 majority, dismissed the plea of the KP advocate general seeking live streaming of the court proceedings. Justice Athar Minallah was the only judge who supported live streaming of the court proceedings.

When the court resumed hearing in the case, KP Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel told the court they had filed an application seeking live streaming of the proceedings. The CJP observed that it was not a public importance matter, but a technical issue, regarding the NAB amendments. The KP advocate general contended that the matter was of public importance as some 598 cases had been transferred by NAB to other forums. The CJP asked the provincial law officer to have his seat and not to argue the case. “Why you did not file a petition in this regard,” the CJP asked. The law officer stated that he had filed an application, adding that on the last date of hearing, he had verbally requested the court for live streaming of the instant proceedings. The CJP, however, asked the law officer to sit down.

It prompted Justice Athar Minallah to remark that as the earlier proceedings of the instant case were telecast live, the ICA proceedings should also be live streamed. “This is a public importance case; therefore, an impression should not be sent that the proceedings of the present matter are not impartial or the court is not independent as well,” Justice Minallah remarked. At this point, the court took a break.

When the court resumed the hearing after 50 minutes, CJP Qazi Faez Isa said since they did not want to take the decision in haste, they deliberated upon the request for live-streaming. “By a majority 4-1, we have declined the request of KP government for live-streaming; however, the respondent in the case will continue to have access to the court proceedings,” the CJP announced.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government, contended that the matter of corruption charges less than Rs500 million outside the jurisdiction of NAB is a matter of policy and the court did not have the authority to review them. He submitted that NAB had been asked to take action on cases related to corruption of Rs100 million in the majority decision.

Justice Athar Minallah remarked that how the judiciary could determine the limit of corruption, adding that parliament setting the limit of Rs500 million did not mean that it was no longer a crime, and the accused had been acquitted, but the forum had been changed. “Putting the burden of proof on the accused means that even today, if someone wants to be harassed, he should be asked for proof of his assets,” Justice Minallah added. Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that the principles set by the SC in the Imran Tiwana case were ignored in the majority decision to nullify the NAB amendments.

Justice Minallah observed that the question of corruption arose in financial matters which were not handled by the minister, but by the principal accounts officer, adding that all responsibility of the financial matters lies with the secretary. Makhdoom Ali said if the majority decision was upheld, then the provincial legislature could enact laws.

Justice Minallah raised the issue of keeping judges and generals out of the NAB law, and remarked that the minority judgment said that retired judges and retired generals should not be exempted from the NAB law. “Do you agree with this opinion?” Justice Minallah asked the counsel, and recalled that in the Pervez Musharraf case, the Islamabad High Court declared that generals were not exempt from accountability. “How can a judge be exempted from the NAB law? No one is above the law; there is no sacred cows, and why we, judges, are sacred cows?” Justice Minallah asked. Makhdoom Ali Khan, however, submitted that no one has been kept out of accountability; there are laws for the accountability of judges and generals as well.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel observed that the NAB law was for accountability of public representatives, and employees in the service of Pakistan, and judges did not belong to the service of Pakistan. There was a constitutional procedure for the accountability of judges. He raised the issue of extending the period of detention and said the government had issued an ordinance.

After Makhdoom Ali concluded his arguments, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan adopted his arguments. Farooq H Naek, counsel for a petitioner, sought an hour’s time for his arguments.

CJP Faez Isa made it clear that no one would be allowed to repeat the arguments, adding that if someone wanted to give arguments other than argued by Makhdoom Ali, the court would hear them. Makhdoom Ali submitted that the judiciary could not interfere in the powers of parliament; even if parliament wants to abolish a law about punishment, it does have such powers. Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the NAB law affected the parliamentarians the most, adding that it was a matter for parliament and parliament should solve it on its own.

The CJP, in his first conversation with Imran Khan, asked him as to whether he wanted to give his arguments or he would depend on Khawaja Haris. In response, Imran Khan said: “Sir, I want to give arguments for half an hour”, adding that he did not know whether he would find an opportunity to talk to him or not.

Imran Khan submitted that on February 8, a major robbery was committed in the country, adding that fundamental rights were being violated in the country, the people of his party were being harassed. “I have been kept in solitary confinement. The NAB case is a matter of great national interest; therefore, I want to talk about the case for half an hour, but I do not have access to the record and I am not allowed to meet my lawyers as well,” he submitted. The former PM also expressed his desire to meet his lawyer Khawaja Haris.

At this, the CJP ordered to provide Imran Khan access to Khawaja Haris and his legal team, and directed the court office to provide all relevant record of the case to Khawaja Haris. He also asked Khawaja Haris to provide all record to Imran Khan. At this, Justice Athar Minallah said in a lighter vein that he should also ensure that Khawaja Haris was not jailed, and the courtroom erupted in laughter.

During the hearing, Imran Khan also talked about the general election, treatment of PTI and violations of human rights in the country. However, the CJP told Imran Khan not to touch that issue as the court was hearing the NAB amendment case currently.

Imran Khan, however, contended that two of their petitions were related to violations of human rights, which were pending before the court, pleading that those should be taken up for hearing. The CJP asked Imran who was his lawyer in those petitions, and he gave Hamid Khan’s name.

The CJP said Hamid Khan is a senior lawyer, and he knew well how cases were scheduled for hearing, adding that he [Hamid Khan] had to go out of the country, so he was given a date of his choice in a case.

“Sir, there is a one-window operation in the jail, which is run by a colonel. You order him to let me meet my legal team. They do not allow me to meet my legal team,” Khan told the court. The CJP said they would issue an order that Khawaja Haris and his team could meet him [Imran] whenever he wanted. The CJP asked Khawaja Haris to take two or three people with him, and not 50 people, and he should not misuse the opportunity. The CJP said the case would be heard again next week at 11:30am, adding that the composition of benches was not clear yet, and the date would be given later.

Earlier, during the course of hearing, Justice Athar Minallah repeatedly raised the issue of prime minister’s statement about judges. Addressing the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP), he remarked that there were no black sheep among judges, and if there were any, then the chief executive of the country should file a reference against them. Expressing his annoyance, he said: “We are not black sheep [but] we are black bumblebee [kalay bhoond]; so PM can get the benefit of doubt.”

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said, “If a court decision is favourable for someone, then the judge is right, and if not, the judge is bad, and the prime minister calls us black sheep.” Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, however, took the rostrum and clarified that those words were not used for the incumbent judges. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until next week.