ISLAMABAD:
The postponement of the verdict of a £190 million benchmark for the third consecutive time has not only left a question mark over the credibility of the judiciary, but it has also opened the floodgates of speculation that the judiciary will be used as a tool to bring the PTI to the ground. negotiation table.
Former PTI minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, who is also a Supreme Court lawyer, said such postponements further shake 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 in this case, coupled with other events, indicates that the negotiations are moving in the right direction. Other events include PTI leaders’ meeting with party founder Imran Khan, issuance of production order for Senator Ijaz Chaudhry and meeting of the negotiating committee on January 15. Together, these events suggest a constructive approach to the talks and certainly foster a sense of optimism, he said. added.
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar pointed out that enlightened opinion inside and outside the country “holds our subordinate judiciary in very low esteem”. The court’s conduct reinforced that view, he added.
Abraham Lincoln coined the term “legal wonder” in connection with the Dred Scott affair. The term refers to any ridiculous act, observation or judicial decision that goes against the fundamental principles of justice and jurisprudence. It is a public secret that the State Against Imran Khan is actually a Deep State against Imran Khan. The trial court has just corroborated this belief,” said Tariq’s lawyer Mahmood Khokhar.
Imran Khan’s lawyer, Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, is convinced that after three postponements of the decision, the procedure has lost its legitimacy.
Legal experts also said that while the resumption of dialogue between the PTI and the government was a positive step, it was necessary to put an end to the perception that the delay in the accountability court’s decision was due to external factors. .
However, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad had a different view as he said that postponing the judgment did not undermine the concept of independence of the judiciary nor did it affect the credibility of any judge or the judiciary. According to article 366 of the CrPC, it is imperative that the presence of the accused is ensured when the judgment is announced, but if the judge considers that there is intentional non-presence of the accused, he can announce the judgment without legal defection, he stressed. .
He added that the postponement of judgment till January 17 is in accordance with law and he has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 366 of the CrPC.
Six judges of the Islamabad High Court, in their letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), had already made allegations regarding executive interference in judicial proceedings in high-profile cases.
The letter also mentioned manipulation of the trial by external elements in the Imran Khan cases. It is also true that the higher judiciary is failing to come up with a mechanism to end the perception that trials in political cases are manipulated by executive authorities.
Imran Khan was convicted in three cases before the general elections. Later, he was acquitted in one case while his sentence was suspended in two cases by the Islamabad High Court.
In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (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 prevent him from participating in politics.
The evidence in the record strongly suggests that the referral was filed at the request of political opponents to prolong their suffering and incarceration, he argued.
