Supreme Court finds major mistakes in Toshakhana case verdict against PTI chairman

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has directed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to hear Toshakhana case against PTI chairman tomorrow at the earliest.

Following this, the Supreme Court will hold its own hearing at 1 pm in the afternoon.

The Supreme Court heard the former prime minister’s plea as he challenged the Islamabad High Court’s order of remanding the Toshakhana case to lower court judge Humayun Dilawar who sentenced the ousted premier to three years in prison.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the plea of PTI chairman.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Islamabad High Court should expedite the case concerning Toshakhana, ensuring a swift resolution.

After the High Court reaches its decision, the Supreme Court plans to convene once more at 1 pm tomorrow.

Sardar Latif Khosa appeared before the court on behalf of PTI chairman and defended his client with strong argument.

Khosa  requested the highest court that his client had filed three appeals opposing the high court’s decision.

He stated, “Six National Assembly members referred to the speaker that they wanted the disqualification of the PTI chairman. Then, the speaker forwarded the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) as per Section 137 of the Election Act.”

Khosa appealed to the court, stating that his client was accused of providing incorrect information about his assets. In response to a question from Justice Naqvi, Khosa read out Section 137 and subsection 4 of the Election Act, 2017.

Justice Naqvi inquired, “Do assembly members possess the authority to refer against fellow members? What law allows assembly members to make references against other parliamentarians?”

To this, Khosa replied that assembly members lack the authority to send references; only the NA speaker holds that power. He additionally informed the court that the election body can only take action against a Member of the National Assembly (MNA) within a specific timeframe of 120 days after the financial statements are submitted.

Justice Mandokhel clarified, “This case isn’t about whether a reference could be sent against the PTI chairman or not. You’re challenging the Islamabad High Court’s decision.”

CJP Bandial also informed lawyer Khosa that the case’s jurisdiction had been contested.

“You’re acknowledging that the case is already being heard in another court,” the CJP pointed out.

The chief justice of Pakistan highlighted glaring errors in the trial process involving PTI Chairman, which pertains to the Toshakhana case.

Chief Justice Bandial pointed out that the accused hadn’t been granted proper opportunities for self-defense. Moreover, it was revealed that the accused had been sentenced and incarcerated the day after the remand order.

While these mistakes have been recognized, CJP Bandial  indicated that he would refrain from intervening in this matter at present.

The trial court had already delivered a judgment on all raised points, the Additional DG Law from the Election Commission stated. Added that an appeal against this decision is scheduled for tomorrow’s hearing in the Islamabad High Court.

Election Commission’s lawyer, Amjad Parvez, appeared before the court and shared that on August 5, when no representation was made on behalf of the accused, the verdict was pronounced.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel questioned whether the accused had requested the presentation of witnesses. The response came from Amjad Parvez, explaining that the court had dismissed the witnesses as irrelevant to the case.

Chief justice raised concerns about the hasty conduct of the trial court, which didn’t provide the accused an opportunity to respond. He also questioned how the trial court could decide based on a reversed order.

Amidst these discussions, the lawyer from the Election Commission pointed out that despite these mistakes, Imran Khan had avenues for legal recourse.

CJP Bandial inquired whether the suggestion was to release the accused immediately. Expressing his disbelief, he questioned whether criminal cases were typically handled so expeditiously, seemingly implying that proper procedure was being compromised.

Justice Mazahar Naqvi underscored the legal obligation to provide the right to a defense, a fundamental aspect of justice.

Advocate Election Commission emphasized that granting the right to defense was legally mandatory and that prosecution was also entitled to seven days for preparation, per the law.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel pointed out that certain witnesses couldn’t be presented by the accused and were summoned by the court itself.

Justice Mazahir Naqvi intervened, stating that the trial court in the Toshakhana case had violated the orders of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.

The narrative prompted questions about the universality of such decisions, with Justice Mazahar Naqvi wondering if similar judgments were commonplace.

The court adjourned the hearing of the case till 2 pm tomorrow.