ISLAMABAD:
Following the conviction of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case, all eyes are now on the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), which is preparing to hear appeals against the sentence.
The composition of the IHC bench dealing with these appeals will be crucial as almost all of Imran’s previous appeals against convictions in the recent past were heard by benches headed by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
These courts have suspended or overturned the former prime minister’s convictions.
For example, his conviction in the cryptocurrency case was quashed by a court headed by Justice Aamer Farooq.
As in the £190 million case, he was given the maximum penalty in the case.
In the same vein, PTI has drawn attention to why its high-stakes cases always seem to end up in courts headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq. Imran Khan himself has raised a flag, calling for the recusal of the IHC Court in these cases on the grounds of “bias”.
Similarly, Imran Khan had also filed a formal complaint against IHC CJ Aamer Farooq in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for allegedly violating his oath and the judicial code of conduct.
In his complaint, the former prime minister accused the IHC Court of Justice of bias and malice against him, stating that this had led to him being denied a fair trial and due process, thereby violating his constitutional rights under the articles 4, 9 and 10A.
“The defendant acts partially and maliciously against the author. The defendant has contributed decisively to denying the author a fair trial and due process, as well as his freedom, in violation of his fundamental rights enshrined, among others, in articles 4, 9 and 10A. of the Constitution,” reads the complaint filed by Imran Khan.
The PTI founder further maintained in the complaint that the IHC Court of Justice had repeatedly ignored requests by its fellow judges to act against blatant interference in the functioning of the court by state agencies, or had played an active role in ensuring that such interference would continue unabated.
In light of these developments, the government has expressed discomfort with the letter from the six IHC judges.
It has been observed that after the letter of six judges of the IHC, most of the high profile cases are being heard by the courts headed by the Supreme Court of the IHC.
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) then approved the nominations of two judges for appointment to the IHC. This has led to speculation whether these newly appointed judges will be included in the court hearing the appeals of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi.
The CJP does not normally assign important cases to additional judges.
In a related development, the PCJ on Friday held two separate meetings to consider nominations for the posts of additional judges in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the Balochistan High Court (BHC).
The meetings, held at the Supreme Court building in the federal capital, were chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi.
In the first meeting, the commission, by majority vote of its total members, nominated Islamabad District and Session Judge Muhammad Azam Khan and Supreme Court Advocate Inaam Ameen Minhas for appointment as judges additional in the IHC.
In the second meeting, the PCJ unanimously nominated Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Ayub Khan, both advocates of the Supreme Court, as additional judges of the BHC. The council nominated Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal for the same position by majority vote. Mengal is also a Supreme Court lawyer.
“In both meetings, the commission unanimously decided that the nominees who this time did not obtain the required majority of the total JCP members to finalize their nominations may be again nominated for future vacancies,” said a statement issued by the SC registrar. office.
