IMRAN DAUGHTER CASE.

ISLAMABAD    -    The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday said that the court would first decide about admissibility of the case and then, it would proceed further in the petition seeking dis­qualification of Chairman PTI Im­ran Khan for ‘concealing’ his alleged daughter Tyrian White.

A larger bench of the IHC head­ed by Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Jus­tice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Jus­tice Arbab Tahir conducted hearing of the petition seeking disqualifica­tion of the PTI chief for concealing his alleged daughter in the nomina­tion papers submitted to contest the 2018 general elections.

In this mater, petitioner Sajid Mah­mood approached the IHC claiming that although Imran made arrange­ments for Tyrian White’s upkeep abroad, he did not disclose it in nom­ination papers and affidavits filed by him for elections.

During the hearing, the IHC Chief Justice questioned that whether Im­ran Khan was still a public office holder and whether merely win­ning National Assembly seats made someone a public office holder.

However, Khan’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja said that there was a question of the admissibility of the petition as well as the court’s juris­diction. Justice Aamer said that the bench was not asking him (lawyer) to give arguments on the merits of the case. He added that if one goes on the merits then it is a two-minute case. The petitioner’s lawyer Hamid Shah said that when the court had issued the notice, Khan should have submitted a reply on the merits, but he instead raised five objections on the plea. He said that the PTI chief had adopted the stance that he was no more a member of the National Assembly.

He submitted that Khan had been disqualified by the Election Com­mission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana case adjudging the Na­tional Assembly constituency from where he was elected in the 2018 general election, vacant. Howev­er, he had challenged the ECP’s de­cision in the court, which stayed the by-elections in the said constituency. Shah said that the ECP had notified Imran Khan’s success from another constituency.

Justice Farooq said that despite all that Imran Khan was no longer an MNA from that seat. He asked the lawyers to give their arguments on following questions: What was the status as he had not taken oath from that constituency and whether the head of a political party was a pub­lic office holder.

The IHC Chief Justice remarked that the court would first decide about the admissibility of the case and then, it would proceed further. The petitioner’s counsel said that there was a decision of the American court regarding Imran Khan and the PTI chief had submitted an affidavit in the American court.

Justice Aamer observed that it was not an affidavit but a declara­tion, which was signed by an oath commissioner in Pakistan. The pe­titioner’s lawyer asserted that Khan as a father had given the declara­tion to hand over the guardianship of “his daughter”.

Justice Kayani said that the word “father” was not used anywhere in that declaration. The IHC Chief Jus­tice questioned what would be the fate of the petition if the National Assembly is dissolved today. He ob­served that Faisal Vawda’s case was also based on a false affidavit.