‘Joke of an allegation’: Legal eagles react to acquittal of Imran, Qureshi in cipher case – Pakistan
“The IHC continues to set the tone for the rest of our justice system,” says Barrister Asad Rahim.
In a major relief for the PTI, the Islamabad High Court on Monday acquitted the party’s founder Imran Khan and his close aide, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in the cipher case — a decision that lawyers termed as a “logical solution”.
The short verdict, announced by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, came as the court took up Imran and Qureshi’s appeals against their convictions in the case. The PTI leaders are, however, not expected to be set free due to incarceration in other cases.
The cipher case pertains to a diplomatic document that the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) charge sheet alleges was never returned by then-premier Imran, who long held that the document contained a threat from the United States to topple his government.
Imran and Qureshi were handed 10-year sentences in the case by a special court established under the Official Secrets Act just nine days before the February 8 general elections.
Here is what lawyers and experts had to say about today’s verdict:
‘A joke of an allegation’
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii referred to the case as a “joke of an allegation” which he said “has come to a rather belated but only logical conclusion”.
“The former prime minister should have been accused of playing politics with our national interests. The correct forum for this is the court of the people by way of elections.
“He was instead farcically accused of revealing state secrets, which only a prime minister can determine the nature and sensitivity of,” Jaferii said.
‘Embarrassment of a case’
“An embarrassment of a case reaches its only logical conclusion. The IHC continues to set the tone for the rest of our justice system,” remarked Barrister Asad Rahim.
“Going off of most precedent, an acquittal at the high court stage makes it far more difficult to secure a conviction at the final forum — and this is if the FIA even chooses to pursue a matter that a near-unanimity of the legal community finds utterly groundless,” he added.
‘Nothing short of hilarious and tragic’
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik said that it would be premature to discuss the merits of the case, given that only a short order had been issued thus far.
“Nonetheless, one thing that has been apparent from the very beginning is that the very conduct of the trial had been suspect, rushed, and on the face of it, perceived to be politically motivated. Even otherwise, one of the recurring themes in the proceedings, as being reported, revolved around no one having apparently read the cipher that had allegedly contained the sensitive information in question, and on which the entire case had been based.
“Although this aspect shall be further clarified in the detailed reasons, nonetheless, if true, the said revelation would be nothing short of hilarious, and tragic,” he stated.
‘Weak from the outset’
Barrister Rida Hosain noted that the Official Secrets Act 1923 — under which Imran and Qureshi were charged — was a law aimed to be used against spies or individuals who disclosed state secrets.
“The special court verdict (in the cipher case) was bereft of any solid reasoning and simply made blanket statements that the national security and stability of the nation were damaged. The harsher punishments for ‘wrongful communication’ under Section 5 only engage if it is proved that: (i) an individual acted in the interest of a foreign power, (ii) the offence relates to defence/military installations, or (iii) the offence relates to a secret official code.
“The acquittal suggests that not one of these conditions was satisfied in the case made against Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi,” she said.
Hosain stated that the “inexplicable haste” with which this conviction was announced in the lead-up to the general elections was unjustifiable.
“Ultimately, while the state narrative in the cipher case was weak from the outset, it has now been rejected by the high court. It also serves as a lesson in that: state-sponsored prosecutions for political purposes are bound to fail eventually,” she added.
‘Legal victory for PTI’
Lawyer Taimur Malik said today’s verdict was a legal victory for the PTI, citing the bench’s remarks that there was no evidence of the case.
“The trial was conducted three times […] Today the court read out the short order which was around 30 seconds long and they threw the case in the dust bin,” he said.
Speaking to GeoNews, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Ahsan Bhoon, said that if a case did not have foundational requirements, then the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused.
“What I observed, in this case, was that the foundational document in the form of admissible evidence was the cipher. The prosecution did not produce the cipher and it never came as evidence on record.
“Under these circumstances, I don’t think the conviction could have been maintained,” he added.
Source link
