[ad_1]
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday withdrew its stay order on former premier Imran Khan’s in-camera cipher trial after the state counsel assured that the witnesses’ statements would be recorded afresh.
The cipher case pertains to a diplomatic document that the Federal Investigation Agency’s charge sheet alleges was never returned by Imran. The PTI has long held that the document contained a threat from the United States to oust Imran as prime minister.
Last month, Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb had restrained the special court from proceeding against the suspects — including former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi — till January 11, noting that there were “legal errors” in the case.
The decision had come on Imran’s petition challenging the trial — being conducted at Adiala Jail — and subsequent developments, including the framing of charges and a gag order on the media.
The Special Court (Official Secrets Act) had begun the cipher trial afresh last month at the Adiala district jail after Imran and Qureshi were indicted for a second time in the case on December 13.
The former premier and his aide Qureshi, who is also behind bars, were first indicted in the case in October. Both had pleaded not guilty. The IHC had termed the government’s notification for a jail trial “erroneous” and scrapped the entire proceedings.
Last month, the Supreme Court had approved the post-arrest bails of Imran and Qureshi. While Imran remains incarcerated in other cases, Qureshi’s expected release was also stalled as he was manhandled and re-arrested in a fresh May 9 case.
Today, Justice Aurangzeb presided over the hearing, during which Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor (AGP) Usman Awan appeared before the judge on court orders.
Salman Akram Raja was present as Imran’s counsel while Sikander Zulqarnain and others also appeared before the court. The FIA sought the services of Justice (rtd) Hamid Ali Shah for assistance in the case.
During the hearing, AGP Awan told the court that the statements of thirteen witnesses would be recorded afresh, while the FIA stated that those of 12 others were yet to be recorded.
The judge recalled that the AGP had informed the court that four testimonies had been recorded in-camera. “Civil law is quite different from criminal law,” he observed.
More to follow
[ad_2]
Source link
