ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday ordered the authorities concerned to remove sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) from the case against PTI Chairman Imran Khan for threatening a female judge.
IHC passed these instructions while announcing the verdict on plea seeking dismissal of the case. A two-member bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah had reserved the verdict on PTI’s plea earlier in the day.
Imran Khan was booked in a case under sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ACT) for making threatening remarks against an additional sessions judge and senior officials of the Islamabad Police in his speech at a rally.
The party had moved the IHC to grant Imran Khan a transit bail, but the court had directed the former premier to approach an ATC as it was a terror case. The FIR registered against Imran Khan states that he threatened Additional Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry and police officers at a rally in F-9 Park to “terrorise” police officials and the judiciary.
The main aim was to prevent the police officers and judiciary from carrying out their legal obligations, states the FIR. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Magistrate Ali Javed at Islamabad’s Margalla Police Station under Section 7 of ATA.
At the outset of the hearing, IHC CJ Athar Minallah inquired about the views given by the joint investigation team (JIT). Responding to the question, special prosecutor Rizwan Abbasi maintained that the JIT is of the view that the ATA sections are applicable to the former premier’s statement.
However, Imran Khan’s lawyer opposed the argument, saying that there are some basic factors required to warrant terrorism charges and that these factors are absent in the case. “A terror case can be lodged for creating an atmosphere of fear and terror, not on the possibility of creation of such an atmosphere,” he said.
He said that Imran Khan spoke about taking legal action and lodging a case against an IG and DIG, contending that the individuals concerned should have filed the case. He said a “mastermind” was behind this computerised complaint against Imran Khan that has been written with patience.
Abbasi read the controversial bits of Imran Khan’s speech in court over IHC CJ Minallah’s directive. “Is that all or is there something else that is controversial? It would open a floodgate if you lodge such cases over speeches,” the justice said.
He said that ATA sections have been misused in the past. “Prima facie, not a single section included in the case is applicable [to Imran Khan’s speech],” the court observed. Faisal Chaudhry, one of his lawyers said, “The case against Imran Khan, however, will remain intact, that will now be tried in a sessions court, instead of an anti-terrorism court.”
“This is actually an order to quash the charges,” another of his lawyers, Babar Awan, said, adding: “It only proves that these are trumped up charges, and just a tool for political victimisation.”
Meanwhile, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) reserved its verdict on the Toshakhana case against Imran Khan after hearing arguments from both the sides. A five-member ECP bench, headed by Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja heard the case. The reference against Imran was filed by PMLN MNA Barrister Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha and it carried signatures of lawmakers Agha Hassan Baloch, Salahudeen Ayubi, Ali Gohar Khan, Syed Rafiullah Agha and Saad Waseem Sheikh.
The ECP reserved its judgment days after Imran Khan in his reply to the commission, formally admitted for the first time to have sold out four gifts received from foreign dignitaries during the first year of his term as prime minister. His reply showed that the former prime minister pocketed Rs58 million from the sale of the gifts he procured from the state treasury, namely Toshakhana after paying Rs21.56 million.
Imran’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar appeared before the ECP bench and admitted that his client had sold four presents he had received during 2018-19. But he maintained that all the gifts were paid for as per law and challan forms of all such purchases were provided in the reply.
He went on to explain that those gifts which were sold, their proceeds were deposited in a bank account and were declared in tax returns and tax was paid on those proceeds of sale. All gifts which were not sold were also declared in tax returns. All the gifts and proceeds and bank accounts, he pointed out, as were there in 30th of June of each year were also declared in the statement of assets filed with the ECP.
Speaking on the legal status of the reference, which seeks Imran’s disqualification over alleged concealment of assets, the counsel contended the reference was filed under Article 62(1) f by the NA Speaker and explained, “This article says if there is a declaration by a court of law that a person is not honest, the person can be disqualified. There are many judgments on this point. These judgments also say that ECP is not a court of law and cannot give a declaration under Article 62(1)f. Therefore, the reference is to be rejected”.
As regards Article 63(2), he said a judgment says that the ECP is entitled to disqualify a person under this article if and only when the grounds mentioned in Article 63 are made out. “None of these grounds have been mentioned in the reference, and therefore, the reference is to be rejected,” he emphasised.
The counsel continued that the ECP can take action in another proceeding not these proceedings under section 137 of the Elections Act, 2017 in case somebody does not disclose any assets. “However such action can only be taken in 120 days. Whereas, in this case the returns which are under question had been filed in 2018 and the period of limitation has lapsed, and accordingly no action even otherwise can be taken by ECP in respect thereof,” he said.
He said even if in a given case, any action has to be taken under section 137 then ECP can send it to the tribunal for trial and cannot decide the disqualification itself. To this, PMLN counsel Khalid Ishaq said Imran was asked about reasons for not declaring the gifts. But, in his reply, the PTI chief admitted to receiving the gifts as well as not disclosing them. Then, he quoted Imran having said in his response that he did not declare items of daily necessities while even one cufflink that Imran did not declare is priced at Rs5.7 million.
Responding to this point, the commission member from Sindh, Nisar Durrani, said it was possible that a mistake might have been committed in the declaration of assets. Responding to this, PMLN counsel contended that in that case, the mistake should be acknowledged.
The ECP member from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, justice (R) Ikramullah Khan, during the proceedings, wondered if the ECP could take action if someone was dishonest. Babar Hassan Bharwana, the ECP member from Punjab, questioned why a reference was forwarded to the electoral body if it was not empowered to doing anything.
During the course of hearing at one point, Khalid Ishaq said Imran had provided the receipts of his London flat but did not provide the same for gifts he had received.
The reference submitted by the ruling coalition lawmakers, was subsequently forwarded to the ECP by Speaker National Assembly Raja Pervaiz Ashraf in August this year, which had identified 52 gift items of Toshakhana received by former prime minister Imran Khan, allegedly violating the law and rules, taken away at nominal prices and selling the gifts including some precious watches in the market. The assessed value of the gifts received between August 2018 and December 2021 was Rs142 million.
PMLN’s Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha alleged Imran concealed information about the gift of watches he received from by Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman in his statement of assets submitted in 2018-2019. He asserted that withholding of information is tantamount to lying which, according to him, is a crime under Section 137 declaring that Imran is no more Sadiq and Ameen and should be disqualified for life from contesting the election under Article 62(1)(f), Article 2, Article 3 of the Constitution. After conclusion of arguments from both the sides, the ECP reserved its verdict.
