ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed a prayer contending that former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi do not have the right to appeal against their conviction in the diplomatic cypher case.
The court will hear the appeals of the PTI leaders “on merit” on March 18.
A special court on January 30 convicted Imran and Qureshi in a case related to the misuse of a diplomatic cypher during the final days of the PTI government in March 2022 and sentenced them to ten years in prison each under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923.
The PTI leaders filed appeals against their conviction in the IHC, where the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), the prosecution in the case, argued that the PTI leaders did not have the right of appeal against their conviction.
When a division bench, comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, resumed hearing the case on Wednesday, FIA Special Prosecutor Hamid Ali Shah stated that the right of appeal is not provided in the OSA, 1923.
“An appeal can be considered a continuation of a trial only if the relevant act provides for it. If there is no right of appeal in the law, the matter concludes with the trial,” he said.
PTI’s lawyer Barrister Salman Safdar responded to the objections raised by the FIA’s special prosecutor. He said that while the OSA, 1923 does not mention an appeal, the procedure and process have been outlined. He argued that an appeal against a conviction is a continuation of a trial.
Safdar referred to the high treason case filed against General Pervez Musharraf in 2013 for subverting the Constitution through the imposition of emergency. He also cited various other judicial precedents.
He stated that there is no right of appeal in the high treason case, but Musharraf was given the right in the Supreme Court under the criminal law.
“The Supreme Court ruled that even convicted individuals have the right to appeal. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, convicted individuals cannot be deprived of the right to appeal,” he said.
After hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the FIA’s prayer. It announced that it will hear the appeals on merit on March 18.
Additionally, the IHC issued a notice to the Adiala Jail superintendent while hearing a petition filed by the PTI against the Punjab government’s decision to impose a two-week ban on meetings with prisoners at the jail due to security threats.
A single-member bench of the IHC, comprising Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, heard the petition.
During the hearing, Lawyer Shair Afzal Marwat stated that the Punjab government imposed restrictions on meetings with Adiala Jail prisoners, including PTI founder Imran Khan, citing security threats.
He argued that the Punjab Home Department does not have the authority to impose such restrictions, as the jail superintendent has the authority to make decisions regarding jails.
The bench noted that there was still time before the Senate elections. “The timing for meeting prisoners has already passed for today. Let’s issue a notice to the superintendent for 11 am tomorrow,” the judge said. The court adjourned the hearing until today.
Another division bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, noted that restricting a prisoner like Imran Khan, who is implicated in 180 cases, to meet his lawyers only one day a week was not appropriate.
The bench was hearing intra-court appeals filed by Adiala Jail superintendent and Islamabad commissioner against court orders allowing the former premier to meet visitors.
The CJ asked the petitioners about the issue with the court orders and their objections. He questioned the petitioners about the prison rules regarding meetings with prisoners.
The judge emphasized that the IHC has complete authority to pass orders regarding prisoners in Islamabad cases. He stated that the trial of the PTI founder is ongoing, and appeals against the sentence are in this court.
The CJ reiterated that the Adiala Jail superintendent has discretionary powers and should use them when dealing with requests regarding prisoner meetings. He clarified that no law or rule is being violated through this judgment, and only a procedure has been established. He added that the court will issue appropriate orders in this regard.
