A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb said this while hearing a petition of the federation, challenging the order of Pakistan Information Commission (PIC) regarding the provision of details of the foreign gifts received by the former prime minister Imran Khan. The PIC had accepted an application in the matter last year, and directed the Cabinet Division to provide the requested information about the gifts received by the then Prime Minister Imran Khan from foreign head of states, head of governments and other foreign dignitaries … description/specification of each gift, information about the gifts retained by the PM and the rules under which received gifts were retained by him.
Later, the Cabinet Division challenged the PIC order before the Islamabad High Court, claiming that it was ‘illegal, without lawful authority’. The then government took the stance that the disclosure of any information related to Toshakhana would jeopardise the international ties.
During hearing on Wednesday, Justice Miangul Hassan observed that the gifts belonged to the office of the prime minister and the state gifts cannot be taken home, and ordered to recover all the Toshakhana gifts from the individuals who had taken them home.
He remarked that people come and go but the Prime Minister’s Office remains the same. He added that every gift given (to the head of the state/government official) belonged to their office, and not to be taken home.
Deputy Attorney General (DAG), Arshad Kiyani appeared before the court on the federation’s behalf and sought an extension for receiving directives from the authorities concerned. Advocate Rana Abid raised an objection over the Cabinet Division’s plea, asking how the matter pertaining to selling the Toshakhana gifts affect Pakistan’s reputation in the eyes of other countries.
At this, the IHC bench directed to provide details of the gifts received by former prime minister Imran Khan. It stated that there is no stay on the PIC’s order and instead, the Cabinet Division is bound to provide details.
He remarked that the state gifts are not only received, but also given to the heads of other countries with the money collected through people’s taxes. Therefore, the incoming gifts should be kept as public property.
He objected that the policy to pay a certain percentage of the gift’s value and take it home should not have been there. He added that such a policy means there is a sale of gifts. He stated that all the state gifts should be kept at a public place. He underscored the need for a new policy under which all the state gifts should be submitted to the national kitty.
In response to DAG’s request, the bench allowed him to get orders from the authorities but still follow the Information Commission’s directive to provide the desired details to the complainant in the meantime.
Later, the bench deferred the hearing in this matter for two weeks.