ISLAMABAD  -  The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday declared all the pro­ceedings in the cipher case after December 14 “of no legal conse­quence”.

The bench declared all proceedings illegal after Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan assured the court to restart the case and record the statements of 13 wit­nesses again in the case.

A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Mi­angul Hassan Aurang­zeb conducted hearing of Imran Khan’s petition challenging his de-novo trial in jail and subse­quent developments, including the framing of charges and a gag order on the media. At the very outset of the hearing, the Attorney General submit­ted that the impugned or­der dated 14.12.2023 is not sustainable in law as the same is not in accord with the law laid down by the Su­preme Court in the case of Ghulam Muhammad Vs The State (PLD 1967 SC 175). He further submitted that he would have no objection if the said order is set aside and that the prosecution has no intention of filing an ap­plication for proceedings be­fore the Special Court to be in camera. 

At this stage, Raja Rizwan Abbasi Advocate who is one of the prosecutors, submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses after 21.12.2023 were recorded in open Court and therefore such testimo­nies should be saved. 

The IHC bench observed that since the impugned or­der dated 14.12.2023 had not been recalled by the learned Judge, Special Court at any material stage and since his order dated 23.12.2023 can­not be treated as an order to recall the said order dat­ed 14.12.2023 or as an order for further proceedings not to be held in camera, the re­quest made by Abbasi cannot be acceded to. 

Justice Miangul Hassan wrote in his written order, “In view of the said submission of the learned Attorney-Gen­eral, the instant criminal re­vision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court is set-aside; and all the pro­ceedings conducted by the learned Judge, Special Court after the said order dated 14.12.2023 are declared to be of no legal consequence.”

Through the petition, the petitioner Imran Ahmad Khan challenged order dat­ed 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court designated to try offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, whereby the applica­tion filed by the prosecution under Section 14 of the OSA, was allowed by excluding the public from the proceedings in the trial against the peti­tioner. 

Furthermore, through the said order, the reporting or publication with respect to the proceedings by the print, electronic and social media was prohibited. A direction was issued to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authori­ty and the Pakistan Electron­ic Media Regulatory Authori­ty to ensure that no reporting with respect to the proceed­ings before the said Court takes place. 

Through the said or­der, the family members of the persons accused in case FIR No.06/2023 dated 15.08.2023 registered un­der Sections 5 and 9 of the OSA read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”) at Police Sta­tion Counter Terrorism Wing, FIA, Islamabad were allowed to attend the proceedings but were prohibited from pub­lishing any evidence given or statements made during the course of the proceedings. 

The IHC bench stated that the reason given by the learned Judge, Special Court, for allowing the said appli­cation under Section 14 of the OSA was “to protect the sanctity of the cypher, a se­cret communication system in place between foreign mis­sions of Pakistan and the for­eign office and sanctity of the State which is inevitably in­tertwined.” 

It was also held that “the publication of any evidence given and or any statement made in the court will be prej­udicial to the safety of the State.” The IHC order men­tioned that during the hearing on 28.12.2023, it also trans­pired that the learned Spe­cial Court had issued certified copies of the testimonies of all the witnesses including PWs-1 to 3 and 7 (who, according to the learned Attorney-Gen­eral were witnesses whose testimonies, if published, would cause prejudice to the safety of the State). The at­tested copies of the testimo­nies had also been produced before this Court which were taken on record. 

It added that this court, in its order dated 28.12.2023, had observed that it is the “publication of any evi­dence” that may be prejudi­cial to the safety of the State that forms the basis for pass­ing an order under Section 14 of the OSA.