Legal experts weigh in on trial court verdict against Imran Khan

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan was convicted and arrested in the Toshakhana case after a district and sessions court in Islamabad found him guilty of selling state gifts in violation of laws. 

Khan is accused of misusing his position as prime minister to sell state gifts worth more than 140 million Pakistani rupees ($490,000) that he received from foreign dignitaries during visits abroad. 

Khan's petition of inadmissibility of the case was rejected and Additional and Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar sentenced the cricketer-turned-politician to three years in prison.

Reacting to the court's verdict, PTI chief's counsel Muhammad Ahmad Pansota termed the court's verdict against his client "politically motivated" while other legal experts raised questions over case proceedings.   

'Wrong on many counts'

The PTI chief's counsel said that the manner in which the judgement was announced appears to be an act of vengeance while rejecting the verdict terming it "wrong on a lot of counts". 

He said that the ousted premier was not given a free trial according to the due process which must be accorded to the accused, as per the law but it does not seem to have happened here. 

"Islamabad High Court's judgement itself which was passed yesterday was quite a difficult judgement to understand but [...] that too [judgement] asked the judge concerned to decide the jurisdiction and of course, the judgement has been announced the same day but time should have been given to accused to defend his position...," he added. 

"The judgement once challenged will be struck down or at least suspended, as even in other ways any conviction which is five years or less is usually suspended on the very first day of the hearing," the PTI chief's lawyer maintained.

'Even a child can interpret verdict'

An Islamabad-based lawyer and legal expert Salaar Khan, told Geo.tv that the decision is so simple that even a child with a history book can comprehend it.

The constitutional expert remarked: "Ask that child how many PMs have completed their five-year term. Or how many parties have won two successive elections? Ask how many times accountability has mattered for a man in uniform."

He added: "That is to say that to many, the conclusion was foregone: if it wasn’t to be reached in this case, it would have been reached in another. But as to the mechanics of the decision, until the detailed judgement is available, there are a few technical matters that will be interesting to see in the likely event of an appeal before the high court." 

"These questions had first been raised by Imran Khan's counsel before the Islamabad High Court and related to whether the trial court could hear this case at all," he stated.

"The high court agreed that they had not been adequately addressed by the trial court, and directed it to consider them afresh. However, this never happened because Imran Khan’s counsel did not appear in court until after the judgement had already been reserved."

"Similarly, Khan’s counsel did not conclude arguments in the main case either. Whether this was a strategic decision, or otherwise, it all remains to be considered by the high court," the legal expert noted.

"In the meantime, the IHC may suspend Khan's sentence until it decides the appeal — one way or another."

'Extreme game is disqualification'

Sheikh Saqib Ahmed, who is also a legal expert said: "Nonetheless, Section 174 of Elections Act, 2017 provides even 'alternate sentence' as word 'or' has been used in section 174 means that sentence of imprisonment of 3 years is 'not mandatory' and accused may only be 'sentenced to payment of fine' only and the same has been left at the discretion of court."

"The judge, exercising his wide discretionary powers, opted for the maximum punishment after examining the evidence against Imran Khan," he noted. 

"The sentence would be suspended by the apex court(s) and [Imran Khan] be released on bail in a short time," he said while adding: "Presently, the 'extreme game' for Khan is disqualification and even losing his party chairmanship and this can be termed as the last nail in PTI's coffin for the next polls."

'Pre-poll rigging'

A human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir said: "This is the same sort of pre-poll rigging that we have seen before in our history where you try to eliminate politicians through processes that are not democratic, implying people do not have the right to decide who they want to elect and who they will remove from power." 

"This is definitely going to result in very controversial elections if they are held in October or November though I don't think they are going to be held," she anticipated while talking with Geo.tv over the phone.

She added that the accused is the "favourite child" of the law and therefore any benefits of "lapses in safeguarding the accused due process rights will be extended to Imran Khan".

The activist said "the manner in which the trial was conducted by the court and dealt with the counsels for the accused person showed bias against the accused person, showed partisanship also in a manner the speed in which the case proceeded, is not usually seen in the district courts every day". 

While referring to the Panama case, she said the only difference here is that Imran Khan has the opportunity for appeal now whereas Nawaz Sharif was not extended the same right.

'Khan's defence was weak'

While speaking to Geo.tv, another legal expert and a TV host Muneeb Farooq said: "The trial court pushed the proceedings hurriedly in the recent past and lots of ground was covered by the trial court in an undue case which was not needed." 

He explained the implications of the case that Imran Khan's defence from the beginning was very weak and Khan's lawyers remained stick to the technical part of the issue. 

"They never went up to the stage where they would like to argue on the issues which are very relevant with the case which is about the merits of the case," he said.

He further added that this gave an impression that they have a very weak defence and "now the question is will Imran Khan get relief from the higher court, the answer is Yes". 

But in this particular scheme, things can be difficult for Khan.

"Since now he is behind bars, he will be in jail, and the NAB would issue a warrant, in fact, summoned him for the Al-Qadir Trust case yesterday and now the law has been amended one can safely argue that NAB can also conduct an arrest even if Imran Khan is in jail for some other matter. So the tide has been turned and the die has been cast and I think Imran Khan is now for another turbulent time," Farooq said.

'Accountability weapon to interfere in democratic process'

Commenting on the verdict, Barrister Rida Hosain said the right to a fair trial and due process is enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, she said, held that a fair trial is a "cardinal requirement of the rule of law".

A few of the central components include a right to a hearing and the right to present your defence. Both the prosecution and the defence must have an adequate opportunity to plead their case, the barrister said adding that the final arguments of Khan’s lawyer were not heard before the verdict was reserved in the case.

The IHC had earlier allowed a criminal revision filed by the PTI chief and stated that another opportunity ought to be given for arguments on maintainability before the trial court. "Despite this, the trial court did not hear arguments on maintainability or otherwise. This goes against the fundamental principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard."

"In our political history, elected representatives are disqualified, removed, imprisoned under the garb of accountability. Unfortunately, ‘accountability’ has become a weapon to interfere in the democratic process," she added.