Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announces verdict n Directs PTI Chairman to appear before trial court on March 13 n LHC sustains objection on Imran’s plea against ban on airing speeches n District court summons ex-PM for indictment in Toshakhana case on March 13 n ECP issues bailable arrest warrants for Imran in contempt case.

 

ISLAMABAD    -    The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday suspended non-bailable arrest warrants issued against Chairman Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan by a district and sessions court in the Toshakhana reference till March 13.

A single bench of IHC compris­ing Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq conducted hearing of Khan’s petition challenging is­suance of his non-bailable arrest warrants by Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal in the Toshakha­na case and accepted the same di­recting the PTI chairman to en­sure that he appears before the lower court on March 13.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the verdict after it was reserved earlier in the day hear­ing the arguments of both the sides. Justice Aamer noted in his written order, “Even though, no il­legality, as such, has been pointed out by learned counsel for the pe­titioner in the impugned orders; it is only appropriate in the in­terest of justice that an opportu­nity is allowed to the petitioner for making appearance without the hanging sword of relevant po­lice officer arresting him to pro­duce before the court or initiation of procedure under sections 87 & 88 of the Code.”

“For the above reasons, non-bailable warrants of ar­rest issued to procure atten­dance of the petitioner shall re­main suspended/in abeyance till 13.03.2023, on which date, the petitioner shall positively ap­pear before learned trial court to face the proceedings. In case, the petitioner does not tender appearance on the date in ques­tion, suspension shall cease to have effect and the learned trial court shall be at liberty to pro­ceed in accordance with law,” said Justice Aamer.

The IHC bench added, “How­ever, as is obvious from or­der dated 06.03.2023 by the learned trial court and even at Bar today, willingness was shown on behalf of petition­er regarding entering appear­ance before learned trial court provided four weeks time is al­lowed; the time offered on be­half of petitioner to enter ap­pearance before learned trial court is unreasonable but in or­der to meet the ends of justice, it is only appropriate that some time is allowed to the petition­er to enter appearance before learned trial court before pro­ceedings are initiated to declare him as a ‘proclaimed offender’.”

The sessions court was set to indict Imran in the Toshakhana Reference on February 28 but his lawyer had requested the judge that he be exempted from the hearing because he had to appear in several other courts. His indictment was deferred twice before. Then, the judge had issued arrest warrants for Imran and adjourned the hear­ing till March 7.

In the petition filed in the IHC, Khan prayed that the sessions court’s February 28 and March 6 orders be set aside so that he could have a “fair opportunity” to appear in court and defend himself.

During the hearing, Imran’s lawyers including Ali Bukhari and Qaiser Imam urged the court to cancel the PTI chief’s arrest warrants. Imam said in his arguments that an attempt on the PTI chief’s life was highly likely during his appearance at the local court.

The IHC Chief Justice re­marked that the arrest war­rant had been issued to ensure Khan’s presence and not for his arrest. He added that Imran should have appeared before the court. He asked Khan’s law­yers to suggest a way to sum­mon the deposed premier to the court. Issuing arrest warrants is the only way in the law to en­sure a suspect’s appearance in court, he added.

Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday sus­tained an office objection to a petition filed by Pakistan Teh­reek-e-Insaf Chairman Im­ran Khan challenging Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (PEMRA) ban on broadcast of his live and record­ed speeches.

The LHC registrar office had put an objection to the petition, saying that the petitioner had not attached a verified copy of Pemra’s notification with the petition. Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan took up the petition as an objection case and sustained the objection after hearing ar­guments of Imran’s counsel.

On March 5, the PEMRA had imposed a ban on airing the speeches of the PTI chairman due to his provocative state­ments against the state institu­tions. Meanwhile, the district court on Tuesday summoned Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan in per­sonal capacity on March 13 for indictment in the Toshakhana case. Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal took three reces­sions during the hearing of the case filed by the District Elec­tion Commissioner Islamabad as Imran Khan’s appeal against the issuance of his non-bailable warrants was being heard by the Islamabad High Court.

When the court was told about the suspension of Imran Khan’s arrest warrants by the IHC, it issued a summon notice for the accused for indictment on March 13. 

Earlier, during the hearing, the judge indicated for fixing the case on March 9, as Imran Khan was going to appear before the high court on the same date, and he would issue orders to the Is­lamabad Police and Interior Ministry for security arrange­ments. The private security team of the PTI chief could re­view the security arrangements at the district courts, he added.

Imran Khan’s lawyer Sher Afzal Murawat pleaded that his client could not appear before the court due to certain rea­sons. Imran Khan had repeated­ly highlighted security threats to his life and moreover, his ap­pearance in court would put the lives of citizens, lawyers and judges at risk as well, he added.

The judge, however, observed that it was the court’s respon­sibility to ensure security ar­rangements. 

Earlier, the judge also asked about the guarantor on the non-appearance of Imran Khan. The guarantor was bound to produce the accused before the court, he observed. 

The ECP lawyer said the legal team of Imran Khan should have informed about the non-appear­ance of the accused in the morn­ing to avoid wastage of time. 

Imran Khan’s lawyer prayed the court to adjourn the case till next week, citing the health is­sues of his client. 

Barrister Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha requested the court to fix the case for March 9 as the PTI chief would surely appear before the IHC on that day.

The court held recessions three times due to the hearing of IHC bench in the case and lat­er summoned Imran Khan on March 13, after the high court issued verdict.

Menwhile, the Election Com­mission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday issued bailable ar­rest warrants for Pakistan Teh­reek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and former federal minister Chaudhry Fawad Hus­sain in a case related to “con­temptuous” remarks against the election watchdog.

The order was issued by a four-member bench compris­ing ECP members Nisar Ahmed Durrani, Shah Mohammad Jatoi, Babar Hasan Bharwana and Jus­tice (retd) Ikram Ullah Khan af­ter the PTI leaders failed to ap­pear before it.

According to the ECP verdict, the bailable warrants would be executed through the Inspector General of Police, Islamabad.

and the leaders were required to submit a surety bond of Rs 50,000 each.

The Commission directed the Islamabad Police chief to en­sure compliance of the warrant on March 14.

On the last date of the hear­ing, neither Imran appeared himself nor his lawyer, and “we have left with no alternative ex­cept to issue a bailable warrant of arrest against respondents in the sum of Rs50,000 (fifty thou­sand) with two sureties in the like amount each,” the ECP ver­dict said.

Earlier in August 2022, the ECP issued notices to Imran Khan and others for allegedly using “intemperate” language against Chief Election Commis­sioner (CEC) Sikander Sultan Raja and the electoral watch­dog. The PTI leaders repeated­ly lambasted the Commission and termed the electoral body a “subsidiary of the Pakistan Mus­lim League-Nawaz”.

On January 17, the Commis­sion had reserved its verdict in the contempt case against Im­ran Khan and other party lead­ers, including Chaudhry Fawad and Asad Umar, after they failed to appear before it despite a fi­nal warning.