ISLAMABAD/RAWALPINDI  -  An accountability court on Thursday turned down PTI founding chief and former prime minister Imran Khan’s acquittal plea in the £190 million case.

The decision was announced during the hearing in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail after arguments of all the parties were heard in the case.

The court fixed September 13 as the date to cross-examine the investigating officer, who is the last witness of the reference.

The accountability court on September 10 had adjourned hearing of the plea seeking exoneration of Imran Khan along his wife in the case till September 12.

The PTI founder on September 7 had filed a plea seeking acquittal in the £190 million case after the Supreme Court’s verdict in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments case wherein the court accepted the intra-court appeals filed against last year’s verdict which struck down the changes made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

The couple is accused of causing billions of rupees loss to the national exchequer. Last week, the court had reserved verdict on Bushra’s acquittal plea in the said case.

Later during the hearing, Khan and Bushra’s lawyers did not appear before the court owing to their commitments in the Lahore High Court (LHC) due to which the reference’s last witness Mian Umer Nadeem — who is also an investigating officer — couldn’t be cross-examined.

Furthermore, assistant counsel Faisal Chaudhry’s request seeking adjournment of the hearing was opposed by the NAB’s prosecution team.

The anti-graft body’s prosecutor had said that Khan and Bushra’s counsels were using delaying tactics in the case as they have been given 16 opportunities to cross-examine the last witness in the reference.

Noting that 12 affidavits have been submitted by the defence lawyers in this reference, the NAB prosecutor had said that since counsels Barrister Ali Zafar and Chaudhry were present at the moment, they should cross-examine the witness.

At this, Chaudhry had requested the court for a chance and said that they would cross-examine the witness if the lawyers failed to appear in the next hearing.

Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) sought clarification from the federal government over the prospects of Imran Khan’s military trial over his alleged involvement in the May 9 riots which witnessed military installations being vandalised following his arrest in a graft case last year.

“The PTI founder is a civilian [and ] the military trial of a civilian is a matter of concern for the petitioner as well as the court,” IHC’s Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb said while hearing Khan’s plea filed on September 3 amid speculations hinting at his trial in a military court.

The former prime minister’s pleas came against the backdrop of statements by government high-ups including Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar which have fuelled such rumours.

Expressing his views during the hearing, Justice Aurangzeb remarked the petitioner has referred to a statement issued by the director general Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR) and said that if it is such, then the federation should present its clear stance on the matter.

“Today if we [court] say that there’s nothing [on the matter] and [then] tomorrow you produce an order for a military trial, what would happen then?” the judge said while directing the additional attorney general to take instructions from the federal government and inform the court on Monday.

“Is the PTI founder’s military trial under consideration? If there’s nothing as such then the plea will become ineffective. However, if it is then we [court] will hear the case and decide upon it,” Justice Aurangzeb noted while pointing out that a decision of the SC on civilians’ military trials exists already.

In response to additional AG’s request for a decision on the objections raised on Khan’s pleas, the judge said that he was removing the objections raised by the IHC registrar’s office.

He was referring to the objections that the petition neither mentioned any specific first information report (FIR) nor any documentation or order was attached to the petition and questioned how a petition be filed in a high court while the matter of military trials is sub judice in the Supreme Court.

The court then adjourned the case till September 16.