PBC takes issue with SC seeing ‘defects’ in PTI chief’s conviction

The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) on Thursday took issue with the apex court’s acknowledgement of “procedural defects” in the Aug 5 conviction of PTI Chairman Imran Khan in the Toshakhana reference by a trial court, saying that there should be no “interference” in matters pending before the subordinate judiciary.

On August 5, a trial court in Islamabad had convicted the PTI chief for “corrupt practices” in a case pertaining to concealing details of state gifts and sentenced him to three years in prison. The verdict means that he stands disqualified from contesting general elections for five years.

Imran had subsequently approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against his conviction. He had also approached the apex court against the IHC’s decision to remand the case back to the trial court judge who had convicted him.

Their remarks came ahead of the IHC’s hearing into the PTI chief’s pleas against his conviction. The Supreme Court will take up the PTI chief’s plea shortly.

On Wednesday, while hearing the PTI chief’s plea against the IHC verdict, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had observed, “Prima facie the decision by the additional sessions judge (ASJ) contains defects, but we will not intervene at this stage; rather [we will] wait for the outcome of the high court decision.”

The SC bench consisting of the CJP, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel noted that when the Toshakhana case was taken up, the trial court called the respondents (Imran Khan side) a number of times. Since neither the petitioner nor any of his authorised representatives were available, the trial court chose to commence hearing ex parte and awarded a three-year sentence to Imran.

In its order, the apex court noted that while recording his statement before the trial court under Section 342 of CrPC, Imran Khan had expressed his intention of producing a defence witness, but the trial court on Aug 2 turned down the request, saying the witness was not relevant to the controversy.

The SC regretted that the trial court through its judgement had defied the IHC’s directions that it must first determine the question of jurisdiction as well as the maintainability of the case.

Commenting on the matter today, PBC Executive Committee Chairman Hassan Raza Pasha said that the main appeal against Imran’s conviction was not fixed before the SC.

“But yesterday’s remarks by the SC which we saw and heard, it seemed as if the whole appeal was decided, and we saw criminal jurisprudence changing,” he said.

“It seems as if there is no trust left in the honourable high court judges. They are also equally honourable and respectable judges, and are passing verdicts according to their conscience … it amounts to interference in the smooth functioning of the high court, appellate court,” Pasha said.

“What decision will the high court make?” he asked. He noted that the lawyers of a certain political party, an apparent reference to the PTI, were saying that the SC’s observations had amounted to an acquittal.

“So will it be inferred that he was acquitted due to the SC’s pressure? And if they don’t, which high court or subordinate judiciary can make a decision either way in light of these observations?” he asked.

He said that the PBC respected the SC and they did not want the court’s esteem to suffer. “There should be no interference in matters pending in the high court,” he said, adding that any interference was unfair to the other party in the case.

“We have seen that in other cases an order is issued, that we expect from the high court to decide the case in such and such manner … Yesterday, we felt that directions were given which should not happen. We, once again, say that no one should be prejudiced,” he said.

He noted that in the past the courts were called “Sharif courts”. “We don’t want the public and lawyers to call the courts by another name,” he said.

Pasha said that the judiciary should be apolitical and should function within the parameters of the law.

Responding to a question from a reporter, Pasha said that the PBC — which he termed the “highest statutory body of lawyers” — wanted the apex court’s respect and honour to remain intact.

“We think that we are also custodians of the Constitution. We talk about the Constitution so we want all matters to operate according to it,” he said.

Meanwhile, PBC Vice Chairman Haroonur Rashid said that the PTI chief had filed an appeal against his conviction in the Toshakhana case, which was still pending before the IHC.

“In that appeal, it has to be seen whether the conviction is right or wrong. That is the high court’s domain, and the SC’s observations from yesterday directly influence lower courts and high courts.”

He noted that high courts and lower courts were subordinate courts. He further said that if the two now issued a verdict according to what they deemed fit, it would seem as if they didn’t consider the apex court’s observation.

“So to give such an observation is not right, legally or ethically. Because neither an appeal nor a bail (plea) was pending before the honourable SC. The appeal and the plea will be decided by the high court.”

Rashid noted that the observations made by the SC yesterday were plastered all over the newspapers. He said that the SC had “assumed” it was hearing the appeal against the conviction.

“There is no matter pending before the honourable SC,” he said, as he also highlighted the council’s objections to SC benches. “We have said this before also that these benches are favouring a party,” he said.