Islamabad:
Although former Prime Minister Imran Khan has been sentenced in five cases since August 5, 2023, none of his convictions has been backed by any superior court. Similarly, serious questions are being raised about equity and non -adhesion to due process during their judgments.
Imran Khan’s legal team constantly alleges that due process and equity requirements enshrined in article 10-A of the Constitution have not been fulfilled during their judgments.
Although PTI’s leadership has not been able to evolve any effective strategy for the release of Imran Khan during the last two years, non -adherence to due process during its judgments has generated serious doubts among the masses, which is also giving political advantages to its party.
Despite the absence of a joint symbol and the lack of availability of a level game field, the results of the general elections of February 8 were shocking for other important political parties. Until Imran is considered a political victim, his opponents cannot defeat him in a free and fair election, says a main lawyer.
He said that the two main political parties, the PML-N and the PPP, should have realized that if they want to defeat Imran in the political field, then the victim’s card should have been removed.
First, Imran Khan was convicted in the case of Toshakhana on August 5, 2023. The Court of First Instance, chaired by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Humayun Dilawar, had given a three -year sentence.
However, some lawyers believe there were serious defects in the sentence. They questioned why the Court of First Instance was in a hurry to decide the case without registering statements of the witnesses whom Imran Khan wanted to present in his defense.
Even the Court of First Instance did not wait for his lawyer, Khawaja Haris, to give his final arguments. Faisal Siddiqi, while commenting on the sentence on August 5, had expressed serious concern about the decision of the Court of First Instance, seeing it as a symbolic destruction of political justice in the country.
Siddiqi also said that the sentence was “the result of the revenge policy by the PDM government and political manipulation by the deep state.” Not only asked that the sentence be revoked, but also urged the superior judiciary to investigate the author’s judge to push the reputation of the entire judicial system.
Shortly after the announcement of the decision, Imran Khan was arrested in Lahore.
After a couple of weeks, the Superior Court of Islamabad led by the then president of the Supreme Court Aamer Faooq suspended the decision of the Court of First Instance. The main appeal in this case is still pending in the IHC.
Later, Imran was convicted in three cases in which trials were carried out in the Adiala prison. These convictions were awarded before the general elections of February 8, 2024. There are serious accusations of manipulation of judgments in these matters.
Interestingly, Imran’s conviction in the Cypher case has been annulled by an IHC division bank led by Judge Aamer Faooq. Similarly, in a second matter, the Court of Appeals also annulled the sentences of Imran and his wife Bushra Bibi in the IDDAT case.
The IHC suspended its convictions in the case of Toshakhana. The final appeal is still pending in this matter before the IHC. Meanwhile, the Court of First Instance held the Imran prison trial and his wife in the case of 190 million pounds.
Although the judge met all the procedural requirements during the trial in the case of 190 million pounds, questions are being asked about the maintainability of the case after the amendments of the NAB Law. Similarly, the judge postponed the date for the announcement of the sentence three times.
Despite the approval of more than five months, the IHC has not yet decided the requests of Imran and Bushra that seek the suspension of the sentence in the case of 190 million pounds. Imran’s legal team is constantly presenting early hearing requests, but the Superior Court has not yet decided the case.
Now, two Imran Khan tests continue in the Adiala prison. One is related to Toshakhana and the other with the disturbances of May 9. Recently, the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) rejected the bail after Imran Khan arrest in the cases of May 9.
Subsequently, the legal team has approached the Apex court against the LHC order. The matter appears at the audience at the SC on August 12. Post-26a amendment, as well as the transfer of judges to the IHC, Imran Khan is struggling to obtain relief in the higher courts.
Although the IHC passed an order conditionally that allows meetings with Imran Khan in the Adiala prison, the decision has not been implemented by the prison authorities.
At present, the government is in a solid position and Imran Khan is still receiving mass support, the only loser is the justice system, which until now has failed to adhere to due process and the equity requirements enshrined in article 10-A of the Constitution during the last two years.
Recently, the Judge of the Supreme Court, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, issued an additional note in the ex-PM presidential reference case Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He said that judges must maintain their oaths with courage against oppression, since only then the Judiciary can really safeguard the democracy and the rights of the people.
“That the transition justice lesson is clear … Transition justice, however, is often necessary because, during the oppressive government, some judges do not fulfill their constitutional duty, succumbing to the pressure of the illegitimate authority.
“This failure not only allows due process violations and the right trial rights, but also erodes public confidence in the Judiciary,” Judge Shah wrote. He said that Bhutto’s case serves as a classic example of a political trial, illustrating how such essays can be manipulated to advance authoritarian designs.
Similarly, the CJP present Yahya Afridi in a similar case said that the extraordinary political climate of the time and the pressures inherent in such an environment seem to have influenced the course of justice in an inconsistent way with the ideals of judicial independence.
