ISLAMABAD:
The postponement of the verdict in the £190 million reference for the third time in a row has not only left a question mark over the credibility of the judiciary but has also opened the floodgates of speculation that the judiciary is being used as a tool to bring PTI to the fore. negotiating table.
Former PTI minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, who is also a Supreme Court lawyer, said such adjournments further undermined confidence in an already misled judiciary.
However, he called the postponement of the decision in the Al-Qadir case a positive development, adding that the delay in the decision of the case, along with some other developments, indicate that the negotiations are going in the right direction. The other events include PTI leaders meeting with party founder Imran Khan, issuing production order to Senator Ijaz Chaudhry and negotiating committee meeting on January 15. Taken together, these events suggest a constructive approach to talks and certainly foster a sense of optimism, he said. aggregate.
Former Additional Solicitor General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar highlighted that informed opinion within and outside the country “holds our subordinate judiciary in very low esteem”. The court’s conduct has reinforced the opinion, he added.
Abraham Lincoln had coined the term “legal astonishing” in connection with the Dred Scott case. The term means any ridiculous act, observation or judicial decision that goes against the fundamentals of justice and jurisprudence. It is a public secret that the State versus Imran Khan is actually the Deep State versus Imran Khan. The trial court has just corroborated that belief,” said lawyer Tariq Mahmood Khokhar.
Imran Khan’s lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain is convinced that after three postponements of the decision, the procedure has lost legitimacy.
Legal experts also said that while the resumption of dialogue between the PTI and the government is a welcome move, there is a need to do away with the perception that the postponement of the accountability court’s decision is due to external factors.
However, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad had a different view commenting that the postponement of the sentence did not undermine the concept of independence of the judiciary nor did it affect the credibility of a judge or the judiciary. According to article 366 of the CRPC, it is imperative that the presence of the accused in the case can be ensured at the time of announcing the sentence, but if the judge considers that there is an intentional fault on the part of the accused, he can announce the sentence without legal desertion, he highlighted. . .
He added that the postponement of the sentence until January 17 is within the law and he has correctly exercised his jurisdiction as provided in Article 366 of the CRP.
Six judges of the Islamabad High Court, in their letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), had already leveled allegations of executive interference in judicial proceedings in high-profile cases.
The letter also mentioned manipulation of the trial by outside elements in the Imran Khan cases. It is also a fact that the higher judiciary is failing to develop any mechanism to put an end to the perception that the executive authorities are manipulating the trials of political cases.
Imran Khan was convicted in three cases before the general elections. Later, he was acquitted in one case, while the Islamabad High Court suspended his sentence in two cases.
In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), PTI founder Imran Khan told the accountability court that the convictions against him and his family members were aimed at putting pressure on him and preventing his participation in the policy.
The evidence on record strongly suggests that the referral was filed at the direction of political opponents to extend his suffering and imprisonment, he maintained.
