Toshakhana case

[ghazi52]

.,..

Toshakhana case​

IHC sets aside trial court verdict declaring PTI chief’s Toshakhana reference ‘maintainable’​

Umer Burney
August 4, 2023

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday set aside a trial court verdict that had declared the Toshakhana reference filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the PTI chairman as maintainable for criminal proceedings.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq ordered the trial court to decide the matter again after re-hearing the case.

He also rejected the PTI chief’s appeal to transfer the case to another court and issued a notice for next week on a petition to restore Imran Khan’s right of defence in the Toshakhana trial.

“The matter is remanded to the trial court for decision afresh,” the IHC said in a detailed order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, noting that the IHC was informed that the case was fixed for final arguments in the trial court today.

“The petitioner shall ensure addressing of arguments positively on the issue when the matter is fixed by the court for final arguments. The trial court shall address the issues raised in the referred petitions while deciding the matter,” the order reads.

It also directed the Federal Investigation Agency to inquire into the matter of certain alleged posts on the session judge’s Facebook account, involve everyone concerned in the matter and furnish a report to the IHC deputy registrar within a fortnight.

Earlier in the morning today, the Supreme Court dismissed Imran’s plea against trial proceedings pertaining to the Toshakhana complaint after he withdrew his petition.

Imran was indicted in the Toshakhana case on May 10. However, Justice Farooq had stayed the proceeding and directed Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Humayun Dilawar to re-examine the matter in seven days, keeping in view eight legal questions he framed to decide the maintainability of the Toshakhana reference.

The questions had included whether the complaint was filed on behalf of the ECP by a duly authorised person, whether the ECP’s decision of Oct 21, 2022, was a valid authorisation to any officer of ECP to file a complaint, and whether the question of authorisation was a question of fact and evidence and could be ratified subsequently during the course of proceedings.

However, when the sessions judge had re-examined the matter, Imran’s counsel Khawaja Haris did not appear before the court to argue the case in three consecutive hearings.

Finally, on July 9, ADSJ Dilawar while ruling that the reference was maintainable, revived the stalled proceedings and summoned the witnesses for testimony.

A session court had last month declared that the ECP reference against the PTI chief was maintainable. The decision was subsequently challenged in the IHC.

On Thursday, the IHC had reserved its verdict on the set of petitions filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, including the application against the maintainability of the complaint seeking criminal proceedings against him on the charge of hiding Toshakhana gifts.

Trial court summons PTI chief tomorrow for final arguments​

Meanwhile, the session court also resumed its proceedings in the case today, during which ECP counsel Amjad Pervaiz delivered his final arguments.

Around 3pm, ADSJ Dilawar asked Imran’s counsel Gohar Khan about the IHC’s developments and was briefed on the high court’s verdict for a fresh decision.

The judge said the ECP lawyer had already given his final arguments and summoned the PTI chief on Saturday (tomorrow), ordering his lawyers to present their final arguments as well on the maintainability of the case.

“The Toshakhana case has entered the final stage in the sessions court. According to the records of the hearings, the trial is in its final stages. The PTI chairman preferred to file petitions in the IHC at the final stage of the trial,” the judge said.

He warned the verdict would be reserved and announced if Imran and his lawyers did not appear at 8:30am on Saturday to give their arguments.

Toshakhana case​

The case, filed by ruling party lawmakers, is based on a criminal complaint filed by the ECP.

The case alleges that Imran had “deliberately concealed” details of the gifts he retained from the Toshaskhana — a repository where presents handed to government officials from foreign officials are kept — during his time as the prime minister and proceeds from their reported sales.

Imran has faced a number of legal issues over his retention of gifts. The issue also led to his disqualification by the ECP.

On Oct 21, 2022, the ECP concluded that the former premier had indeed made “false statements and incorrect declarations” regarding the gifts.

The Toshakhana is a department under the Cabinet Division that stores gifts given to rulers and government officials by heads of other governments and foreign dignitaries. According to Toshakhana rules, gifts/presents and other such materials received by persons to whom these rules apply shall be reported to the Cabinet Division.

The watchdog’s order had said Imran stood disqualified under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution.

Subsequently, the ECP had approached the Islamabad sessions court with a copy of the complaint, seeking proceedings against Imran under criminal law for allegedly misleading officials about the gifts he received from foreign dignitaries during his tenure as the prime minister.

IHC sets aside trial court verdict declaring PTI chief’s Toshakhana reference ‘maintainable’

Says the matter is remanded to the trial court for decision "afresh"; ADSJ Humayun Dilawar summons Imran Khan and his lawyers tomorrow.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,

Toshakhana case: Supreme Court dismisses Imran Khan’s plea​

• Says trial court could not reserve its verdict on the Toshakhana case until the Islamabad High Court gave its verdict

BR

The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed on Friday Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s plea against trial proceedings pertaining to the Toshakhana case.

A three-member SC bench, led by Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, heard Imran’s plea.

Earlier, the top court had constituted a fresh three-member bench to preside over the Toshakhana case. Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi was replaced by Justice Rizvi.

During the hearing today, Advocate Khawaja Haris appeared as the former PM’s counsel while Advocate Amjad Pervaiz appeared as the counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The SC said that the trial court could not reserve its verdict on the Toshakhana case until the Islamabad High Court (IHC) gave its verdict.

The top court dismissed Imran’s plea against trial proceedings after he withdrew the petition.

Background

Last year in October, the Election Commission of Pakistan had disqualified Imran from his parliamentary membership for filing “false” and “incorrect declaration” in his statement of assets and liabilities for the year 2020-21 filed with the electoral entity.

Established in 1974, the Toshakhana is a department under the administrative control of the Cabinet Division and stores precious gifts given to rulers, parliamentarians, bureaucrats, and officials by heads of other governments and states and foreign dignitaries.

Lawmakers from the ruling coalition had filed a reference last year against Imran alleging that he had not shared details of the gifts he retained from the Toshakhana and proceeds from their reported sales.

This year in May, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Hamayun Dilawar indicted Imran in the case and rejected his petition challenging the maintainability of the reference.

The PTI chairman then moved the IHC, which sent the case back to the trial court for re-examination.

Following the IHC ruling, Imran moved the SC and urged the apex court to set aside the high court’s directive.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.

Toshakhana case: Imran arrested after sessions court sentences him to three years in prison​

• PTI chief has been found 'guilty of corrupt practices'

BR
August 5, 2023

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan was arrested on Saturday shortly after a district and sessions court found him guilty in the Toshakhana case and sentenced him to three years in prison.

PTI’s Punjab Chapter confirmed the arrest and said Imran is being moved to Kot Lakhpat Jail.

Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Humayun Dilawar had earlier ruled that charges against Imran in the case were proven, adding that the former PM “deliberately submitted fake details to the Election Commission of Pakistan and is found guilty of corrupt practices”.

During the hearing today, neither Imran nor his lawyers were present.

The court also slapped a fine of Rs100,000 on the PTI chief. The judge rejected Imran’s appeal against declaring the case maintainable.

Moreover, the judge also directed that a copy of the order should be sent to the Islamabad police chief for the execution of the court orders.

Following the directives, a heavy contingent of Lahore police reached Zaman Park to arrest the PTI chairman.

Later, the court issued a written order which said that Imran provided an “incorrect declaration” in the Form-B submitted to the ECP for the year 2020-2021.

The order said that the former PM cheated while providing information of gifts he obtained from Toshakhana which later proved to be false and inaccurate.

“His dishonesty has been established beyond doubt,” it stated.

The development comes as Pakistan braces for elections in the coming months with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif seemingly set to dissolve the assemblies on August 9.

Moreover, on Friday, Islamabad High Court (IHC) set aside the session court’s verdict that had declared the Toshakhana reference against Imran as maintainable for criminal proceedings.

It also rejected the Imran’s appeal to transfer the case to another court.

PTI moves Supreme Court

Meanwhile, PTI in a statement announced that it has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court over the district court case judgment.

In a statement, the party rejected the court’s decision and said that another black mark was placed on the justice system.






Legal experts say a conviction in the case could end Imran’s chances of participating in national elections.

Background

Last year in October, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had disqualified Imran from his parliamentary membership for filing “false” and “incorrect declaration” in his statement of assets and liabilities for the year 2020-21 filed with the electoral entity.

Established in 1974, the Toshakhana is a department under the administrative control of the Cabinet Division and stores precious gifts given to rulers, parliamentarians, bureaucrats, and officials by heads of other governments and states and foreign dignitaries.

Lawmakers from the ruling coalition had filed a reference last year against Imran alleging that he had not shared details of the gifts he retained from the Toshakhana and proceeds from their reported sales.

This year in May, Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar indicted Imran in the case and rejected his petition challenging the maintainability of the reference.

The PTI chairman then moved the IHC, which sent the case back to the trial court for re-examination.

Following the IHC ruling, Imran moved the SC and urged the apex court to set aside the high court’s directive.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,..

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.

Imran Khan will not be rendered irrelevant to Pakistanis over some technical knockout​

For the court to hand the PTI chief the maximum possible sentence for the offence he was charged with seems excessive.

Editorial
August 6, 2023

PAKISTAN’S twisted political saga continues without the slightest deviation from a tired and predictable script. PTI chairman Imran Khan has been found guilty of “corrupt practices”, disqualified from representing the people of Pakistan, fined Rs100,000, and sentenced to three years in jail for good measure.

If Mr Khan’s actual ‘crime’ seems irrelevant and of little moral significance, it is because former prime ministers Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy faced similar treatment at the hands of the state; none of the charges levelled against them withstood the test of time.

Indeed, considering the frivolity of the charge and severity of Mr Khan’s punishment, one need not reach too far back in history to find a parallel. Where Mr Sharif’s political dreams were cut short over an unreceived salary, Mr Khan’s political career has been rudely interrupted over failing to properly declare certain gifts he received as prime minister. In neither case, can the severity of the punishment be said to have fitted the ‘crime’.

There is no denying that Mr Khan blundered by not complying with the ECP’s asset declaration rules as strictly as he should have. However, months of reporting on Toshakhana records have since established that very few of those who received gifts in an official capacity may be able to pass similar scrutiny if their records were to be examined with the same vigour.

Given that context, for the court to hand Mr Khan the maximum possible sentence for the offence he was charged with seems excessive. The punishment is all the more problematic after the concerns raised by several observers over the manner in which the trial was conducted and the seeming haste with which the judgement was issued. Of course, Mr Khan is entitled to appeal the sentence, and he may earn a reprieve, but the intended damage may have been done by then.

It must be asked why our state periodically subjects popular leaders to such humiliation when it routinely ignores far more serious crimes. This is, after all, the same country where a clear constitutional edict to hold elections within a specified time frame was wilfully cast aside earlier this year, and there still haven’t been any consequences for the actors involved in the farce.

The fact is that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were not, and Imran Khan will not be rendered irrelevant to Pakistanis over some technical knockout. The fate of a politician rests in the hands of their constituency, and no amount of external interference can change this simple relationship. The experiment was tried in the earlier two cases and failed, and the state seems to be repeating the same mistake, only to weaken a fraying social contract further.

 

[Path-Finder]

250 million harami and cowards.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,
This is the first Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Abdul Rasheed, who emptied the ink from his pen on the last day of his job, that even this ink could not be taken home to the country. was loaned. I trust.

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,
‘Symbolic destruction of justice’

Similarly, Faisal Siddiqi, an activist lawyer, expressed grave concern over the trial court's judgment, viewing it as a symbolic destruction of political justice in the country.

Siddiqi asserted that the judgment was “a result of revenge politics on the part of the PDM government and the political manipulation by the deep state”. He not only called for the judgment to be overturned but also urged the superior judiciary to investigate the author judge for tarnishing the entire judicial system's reputation.

Echoing Siddiqi's sentiments, Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, former additional attorney general, highlighted concerns of potential judicial bias or an appearance of bias throughout Imran Khan's trial.

He pointed out that these circumstances alone provided sufficient reasons for a judge to recuse themselves from a case and further noted that Imran Khan's rights to present evidence, including calling witnesses, were denied.

Khokhar reminded that judicial fairness, independence, and impartiality should extend not only to the final decision but also to the process through which it is reached.

According to Khokhar, the case highlights a denial of procedural due process due to politically motivated trial, conviction, and sentencing. He regretted that the judge failed to avoid impropriety and presented an appearance of impropriety.

Khokhar lamented that in current times, an order by an additional sessions judge carried more weight and significance than the orders issued by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), which should reaffirm the constitutional fundamentals.

"It is a measure of our times that an order of an additional sessions judge is more compelling and carries higher sanctity than the orders of the CJP reaffirming the constitutional fundamentals."

‘Controlling democracy’

Usama Khawar, a lawyer and professor at LUMS Law School, believed it was politically not right to focus on specific legal technicalities.

The correct way, he argued, of examining these decisions was the political lens. “If one insists on looking at these issues from legal lenses it would be at best incomplete and at worst dishonest analysis. These cases are about politics and controlling democracy.”

Law is just an excuse to cut to size insubordinate politicians, he added.

Supreme Court advocate Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, while commenting on the judgement, said it was customary while defending the state's case in the criminal justice system, to simultaneously address the merits of the case in the trial court while incorporating legal and technical objections including maintainability and jurisdiction.

According to the advocate, it is essential to present all arguments before the trial court, especially when the appellate high court or Supreme Court has not halted the trial proceedings and has issued instructions to do so. However, in this particular case, this crucial approach was absent.

As a result, he regretted, the judgment was delivered without adhering to the high court's directions on maintainability, which should have mandated the accused to present their final arguments after making a statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

‘Blatant violation of IHC’s order’

Meanwhile, in a statement, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) SCBA President Abid S Zuberi and Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir expressed serious reservations in relation to the legality of the judgment as it was a “blatant violation” of the Islamabad High Court’s August 4, 2023 order.

They said it was truly unfortunate that the court decided the case in absolute haste and without affording the accused a fair opportunity of hearing and in the absence of the counsel for the accused which is in blatant violation of the accused’s fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 4, 9, 10, 10A and 25 of the Constitution.

The statement mentioned that the IHC, through its Aug 4 order, had remanded the issue of maintainability back to the ADSJ directing him to decide the issue of maintainability afresh.

“However, the learned judge, instead of deciding the matter afresh, dismissed the application in haste and without any application of independent mind in reliance of its own earlier orders dated 05.05.2023 and 08.07.2023 which had been remanded to be decided afresh, vide the Honourable Islamabad High Court’s order dated 04.08.2023.”

The SCBA lamented that the learned judge proceeded in the absence of the counsel for the accused and imposed the maximum penalty under the law against the accused. “That such a hasty decision is against all settled principles of fairness, natural justice and due process of law and the timing of such a decision appears to be aimed at excluding political leaders from participating in upcoming elections.”

“The historical trend of disqualification and ban of popular political leaders by the judiciary is against the principles of democracy and fair trial as enshrined under the constitution,” the statement asserted.

“It is pertinent to remember that the judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and the fundamental rights enshrined therein; therefore, such judgments will only lower the people’s faith in the judiciary to uphold justice,” it added.

 

[ghazi52]

,..,

ECP moves to remove Imran as party head​

Following conviction in Toshakhana reference, PTI chief to be barred from heading party

 

[Jango]

.,.,
View attachment 944087

Actually no. It was Lahore police that arrested him, not Isb police.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.

CJP Bandial forms bench to hear PTI chief's appeal against Toshakhana case proceedings​

• The bench led by the CJP will also include Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

 

[ghazi52]

,..,.

Toshakhana: IHC seeks arguments on Imran’s plea on Thursday​

ATC judge summons PTI chief in five cases on Sept 25; Oct 5 and Oct 12

Fiaz Mahmood
August 22, 2023

A division bench of the Islamabad High Court sought arguments on Thursday on a plea from the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman, Imran Khan for suspension of his sentence in Toshakhana case.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, issued notices on plea related to facilities to the PTI chairman in the Attock District Jail.

The PTI chairman’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris did not appear in the court. However, he was represented by other lawyers including Latif Khosa, Babar Awan, Sher Afzal Marwat and Barrister Gohar Ali.

Khosa told the court the report of Attock district and sessions judge’s visit to the district jail had come out, which revealed that a camera had been installed in front of PTI chairman’s barrack.

Marwat complained that the lawyers were not being allowed to meet the PTI chairman. However, Chief Justice Farooq remarked that it was beyond comprehension as to why such a meeting was prevented.

He reminded that he had ordered that the lawyers should go to jail to meet Imran but they should not make a rush. Awan replied that despite the court order, the jail administration was not allowing the lawyers to meet Imran.

The chief justice remarked that he was issuing notice on the PTI chief’s request regarding facilities in the jail. On the occasion, Amjad Parvaiz, the lawyer for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), sought time to prepare.

The chief justice asked the ECP lawyer about court notice and the provision of record to the court. The lawyer replied that he had not received the certified record of the case and sought two weeks' time make his submissions.

PTI’s Latif Khosa opposed the request for time, saying that the PTI chairman was in jail and his fundamental rights were being violated. He added that notices had already been issued in this case, while his client was in jail without any facilities.

He requested the court to suspend the sentence awarded to Imran on Tuesday. He also said that the trial court sentenced him in his absence, adding that his conviction in the Toshakhana case was illegal.

Furthermore, Khosa argued that the sessions court of Islamabad had no jurisdiction to hear the case against Imran, while the ECP secretary was not authorised to file complaint against the PTI chief.

The lawyer insisted that this court should release the PTI chairman on bail immediately, adding that delaying tactics were being used in the case. However, the court adjourned the hearing till August 24.

Separately, an anti-terrorism (ATC) court summoned the PTI chairman on different dates in five different cases registered against him under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

ATC Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain heard the cases. Advocate John Muhammad told the court it was not easy to bring the PTI Chairman from jail to court every day.

The judge agreed that it was not appropriate to bring the accused from jail, but stressed that the attendance of the accused in the cases should be marked. On that the lawyer demanded the one date should be fixed for that purpose.

The judge said that the PTI chairman would have to come to the court, adding that since the number of co-accused in these cases was high, therefore, it would be difficult to mark attendance separately and the cases could be clubbed later.

The court issued summons in two cases registered against the PTI chairman in Ramna police station, on September 25; in the case registered at Golra police station on October 5; while in Counter-Terror Department (CTD) and Sangjani police stations on October 12.

 

[ghazi52]

,..,.,

Toshakhana case: PTI to lodge reference against IHC top judge​

IMRAN ADNAN

Former ruling party urges CJ Aamer Farooq to withdraw from Imran's gift depository case