ISLAMABAD:
Following the verdict of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case, all eyes are now on the Islamabad High Court (IHC), as it prepares to hear the appeals against the order.
The composition of the IHC bench hearing these appeals will be crucial as almost all of Imran’s previous appeals against convictions in the recent past were heard by benches headed by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
These benches have either suspended or overturned the former prime minister’s convictions.
For example, his judgment in the cypher case was set aside by a bench headed by Justice Aamer Farooq.
Similar to the £190 million case, he had received the maximum sentence in the case.
Similarly, the PTI has raised eyebrows as to why its high-profile cases always seem to land on benches headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq. Imran Khan himself has raised a flag to seek the IHC CJ’s disqualification from these cases on the grounds of “bias”.
Likewise, Imran Khan had also filed a formal complaint against IHC CJ Aamer Farooq in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for allegedly violating his oath of office and the code of judicial conduct.
In his complaint, the former prime minister accused the IHC CJ of bias and malice against him, claiming that this had led to the denial of a fair trial and due process, thereby violating his constitutional rights under Articles 4, 9 and 10A.
“The Respondent is influenced by bias and malice against the Complainant. The Respondent has been instrumental in denying the Complainant a fair hearing and due process as well as his liberty, in violation of his fundamental rights under, inter alia, Articles 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution ,” read the complaint filed by Imran Khan.
The PTI founder further maintained in the complaint that the IHC CJ had either repeatedly ignored requests by his fellow judges to act against blatant interference in the court’s functioning by government agencies, or had actively played a role in ensuring that such interference continued unabated strength.
In light of these developments, the government has been troubled by the letter of the six IHC judges.
It has been witnessed that after the letters of six IHC judges, majority of high profile cases are heard by benches headed by IHC CJ.
Following this, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the nominations of two judges for appointment to the IHC. This has raised speculation as to whether these newly appointed judges will be included in the bench hearing the appeals of Imran Khan and Bushra Bibi.
The CJP typically does not assign important cases to additional judges.
In a related development, the JCP on Friday held two separate meetings to consider nominations for the posts of Additional Judges of Islamabad High Court (IHC) and Balochistan High Court (BHC).
The meetings, held at the Supreme Court building in the federal capital, were presided over by President of Pakistan Yahya Afridi.
In the first meeting, the commission by a majority of its total membership nominated Islamabad District & Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan and Advocate Supreme Court Inaam Ameen Minhas for their appointment as Additional Judges of the IHC.
In the second meeting, the JCP unanimously nominated Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Ayub Khan – both advocates of the Supreme Court as additional judges of the BHC. The Council nominated Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal for the same position by majority vote. Mengal is also a lawyer for the Supreme Court.
“At both meetings, the commission unanimously decided that nominees who did not secure the required majority of the total membership of the JCP for finalization of their nominations this time may be re-nominated for future vacancies,” said a statement issued by the SC Registrar. office.
