The postponement of the judgment in the 190 million pound reference for the third time in a row has not only left a question mark on the credibility of the judiciary, but it has also opened the floodgates for speculation that the judiciary is being used as a tool to bring PTI to the negotiating table.

Former PTI minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, who is also a Supreme Court lawyer, said such adjournments further shook confidence in an already misguided judiciary.

However, he described the postponement of the decision in the Al-Qadir case as a positive development, adding that the delay in the case decision compared to some other events indicates that the negotiations are moving in the right direction. The other events include PTI leader’s meeting with party founder Imran Khan, issuance of a production order to Senator Ijaz Chaudhry and the meeting of the negotiating committee on January 15. Taken together, these events suggest a constructive approach to the negotiations and certainly promote a sense of optimism, he added.

Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Khokhar highlighted that informed opinion inside and outside the country “holds our subordinate judiciary in very low esteem”. The conduct of the court has reinforced the statement, he added.

Abraham Lincoln had coined the term “legal astonisher” in relation to the Dred Scott case. The term denotes any ridiculous judicial act, observation or decision which is contrary to the basic principles of justice and jurisprudence. It is an open secret that the state versus Imran Khan is actually the deep state versus Imran Khan. The court has just confirmed that conviction,” said Tariq Mahmood Khokhar the lawyer.

Imran Khan’s lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain is convinced that the proceedings after the postponement of the decision three times have lost legitimacy.

The legal experts also said that while the resumption of dialogue between the PTI and the government is a welcome step, there is a need to stop the perception that delaying the decision of the accountability court is being taken due to external factors.

However, Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad had a different view when he commented that the postponement of the judgment neither undermined the concept of judicial independence nor affected the credibility of a judge or judiciary. Under section 366 of CRPC, it is imperative that the presence of the accused in the case can be secured while pronouncing the sentence, but if the judge thinks that there is willful non-presence of the accused, he can pronounce the sentence without legal waiver, highlighted he. .

He added that the adjournment of the judgment till January 17 is within the law and he has rightly exercised his jurisdiction as given under Section 366 of the CRPC.

Six judges of the Islamabad High Court in their letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had already made allegations of executive interference in the proceedings in high-profile cases.

The letter had also mentioned about the manipulation of the trial by external elements in Imran Khan cases. It is also a fact that the superior judiciary is failing to develop any mechanism to end the perception that trials of political cases are being manipulated by executive authorities.

Imran Khan was convicted in three cases before the general election. He was later acquitted in one case, while his sentence was suspended in two cases by the Islamabad High Court.

In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), PTI founder Imran Khan told the accountability court that convictions against him and his family members were aimed at pressuring him and preventing his participation in politics.

The documents on record strongly suggested that the reference was filed at the behest of political opponents to prolong their suffering and imprisonment, he maintained.