Imran Khan, the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has taken legal action by petitioning the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to challenge his indictment in the cipher case, urging the court to deem the process as “illegal and unlawful.”
The cipher case revolves around a diplomatic document that Imran Khan is accused of not returning. The charge sheet alleges that this document contained a threat from the United States to remove Imran from his position.
Imran Khan had previously been convicted and sentenced to three years in prison in the Toshakhana graft case on August 5. However, on August 29, the IHC suspended his sentence. Nevertheless, he remained incarcerated due to his judicial remand in the cipher case.
Read more:Official Secrets Act Court Permits Imran Khan to Speak with His Children
On September 30, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) submitted a charge sheet in a special court established under the Official Secrets Act, naming PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Imran as the principal accused in the case.
On Monday, both PTI leaders were formally indicted in the cipher case. They entered pleas of not guilty, and the judge subsequently scheduled witnesses to testify on October 27, asking the prosecution to present evidence to substantiate the allegations. The judge also rejected an application to halt the framing of charges against the two PTI leaders.
Imran Khan’s legal counsel, Salman Safdar, filed a plea with the IHC on his behalf today. The petition, a copy of which is available, identifies the state through the attorney general’s office and Ministry of Interior Secretary Yousuf Naseem Khokhar as respondents.
In the plea, it is mentioned that Imran Khan is “quite aggrieved” by the way the charges are being framed, as well as the proceedings and trial under the Official Secrets Act. The plea claims that the trial is progressing in a manner that violates established principles of criminal law, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
It contends that the judge handling the case has shown undue haste in framing charges against the accused despite serious objections and pending applications filed before the court. The petition notes that this haste is particularly concerning given that the charge sheet was only recently submitted, and no directions were given for an early conclusion or day-to-day hearings by any superior court.
The petition argues that the charges framed under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act blatantly violate the law.
Imran’s “secret arrest” and “secret remand,” coupled with the hastiness in indicting him, indicate a flawed approach and understanding of practice and procedure during the cipher trial, according to the plea.
The petition asserts that the judge has committed a “gross illegality” by framing charges in the absence of “main documentary evidence.” Consequently, the petition requests the IHC to declare the hurried framing of charges as “illegal, unlawful, and against the established principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Furthermore, it urges the court to declare this exercise in violation of Article 4 (due process) and 10-A (right to a fair trial) of the Constitution.
The petition also seeks a remedy to address the “incurable irregularity” with an appropriate direction and to prevent evidence from being recorded on a “defective charge.”
