[ad_1]
“The IHC continues to set the tone for the rest of our justice system,” says Barrister Asad Rahim.
In a major relief for the PTI, the Islamabad High Court on Monday acquitted the party’s founder Imran Khan and his close aide, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in the cipher case — a decision that lawyers termed as a “logical solution”.
The short verdict, announced by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, came as the court took up Imran and Qureshi’s appeals against their conviction in the case. The PTI leaders are, however, not expected to be set free due to incarceration in other cases.
The cipher case pertains to a diplomatic document that the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) charge sheet alleges was never returned by then-premier Imran, who long held that the document contained a threat from the United States to topple his government.
Imran and Qureshi were handed 10-year sentences in the case just nine days before the February 8 general elections.
Here is what lawyers and experts had to say about today’s verdict:
‘A joke of an allegation’
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii referred to the case as a “joke of an allegation” which he said “has come to a rather belated but only logical conclusion”.
“The former prime minister should have been accused of playing politics with our national interests. The correct forum for this is the court of the people by way of elections.
“He was instead farcically accused of revealing state secrets, which only a prime minister can determine the nature and sensitivity of,” Jaferri said.
‘Embarrassment of a case’
“An embarrassment of a case reaches its only logical conclusion. The IHC continues to set the tone for the rest of our justice system,” remarked Barrister Asad Rahim.
“If you look at the precedent or the legal requirement, it is clear that the presumption of innocence weighs more if you have been acquitted by the lower court,” he highlighted.
Rahim added that the FIA could appeal the case in the Supreme Court. “However, it becomes increasingly difficult to convict someone in the SC after the high court has acquitted them,” he pointed out.
‘Nothing short of hilarious and tragic’
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik said that it would be premature to discuss the merits of the case, given that only a short order had been issued thus far.
“Nonetheless, one thing that has been apparent from the very beginning is that the very conduct of the trial had been suspect, rushed, and on the face of it, perceived to be politically motivated. Even otherwise, one of the recurring themes in the proceedings, as being reported, revolved around no one having apparently read the cipher that had allegedly contained the sensitive information in question, and on which the entire case had been based.
“Although this aspect shall be further clarified in the detailed reasons, nonetheless, if true, the said revelation would be nothing short of hilarious, and tragic,” he stated.
‘No foundational requirements’
Speaking to GeoNews, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Ahsan Bhoon, said that if a case did not have foundational requirements, then the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused.
“What I observed, in this case, was that the foundational document in the form of admissible evidence was the cipher. The prosecution did not produce the cipher and it never came as evidence on record.
“Under these circumstances, I don’t think the conviction could have been maintained,” he added.
[ad_2]
Source link
