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 All eyes are now on the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as it prepares to hear appeals against the ruling.
The composition of the IHC bench that will handle these appeals will be crucial, as almost all of Imran’s previous appeals against convictions in the recent past were heard by chambers headed by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
These magistrates either suspended or annulled the convictions of the former Prime Minister.
For example, his conviction in the Cypher case was overturned by a court headed by Justice Aamer Farooq.
As in the £190 million case, he received the maximum sentence in this case.
In the same vein, the PTI has raised eyebrows as to why its high-stakes cases always seem to land on benches headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq. Imran Khan himself raised the alarm, demanding the disqualification of the IHC Chief Justice from these cases on the grounds of “bias”.
Similarly, Imran Khan had also filed a formal complaint against IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq with the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for allegedly violating his oath of office and code of judicial conduct.
In his complaint, the former prime minister accused the IHC chief justice of bias and malice against him, saying it led to the denial of fair trial and due process, thereby violating his constitutional rights under sections 4, 9 and 10A.
“The defendant is motivated by bias and malice against the plaintiff. The defendant was instrumental in denying the plaintiff a fair trial and due process and his liberty, in violation of his guaranteed fundamental rights, between others, by Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution,” reads the complaint filed by Imran Khan.
The PTI founder further contended in the complaint that the IHC chief justice had either repeatedly ignored requests from his fellow judges to act against blatant interference in the functioning of the court by agencies of the The state either had actively played a role in ensuring that this interference continued unabated.
In light of these developments, the government expressed concern about the letter from the six IHC judges.
It was observed that after the letter of six IHC judges, the majority of high-profile cases are heard by the benches headed by the IHC Chief Justice.
Following this, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the appointment of two judges to the IHC. This sparked speculation whether these newly appointed judges would be included in the bench handling the appeals of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi.
The CJP generally does not assign important cases to additional judges.
In related developments, the JCP held two separate meetings on Friday 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.
At the first meeting, the commission, by a majority vote of all its members, nominated Islamabad District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan and Supreme Court advocate Inaam Ameen Minhas for their appointment as additional judges to the IHC.
In the second meeting, the JCP unanimously appointed Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Ayub Khan, both Supreme Court lawyers, as additional judges to the BHC. The council nominated Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal for the same post with a majority vote. Mengal is also a Supreme Court lawyer.
“At both meetings, the committee unanimously decided that candidates who did not obtain the required majority of all JCP members to finalize their appointment this time may be reappointed for future vacancies “, said a statement issued by the SC Registrar. office.
