Toshakhana trial against Imran Khan starts today
ISLAMABAD: After receiving the Toshakhana reference from the Pakistani Election Commission on Monday, the district court in Islamabad began criminal proceedings against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan (ECP).
A reference had been sent to the district and sessions judge in Islamabad by the ECP following sections 137, 170, and 167 of the Election Act. The hearing will now be conducted starting on Tuesday (today) by Additional Sessions Judge Zafar Iqbal.
The district election commissioner (DEC) stated in the complaint that Imran Khan should face trial for engaging in corrupt practices and providing false asset information when referring the case to the district court. Additionally, the DEC asked the court to uphold the complaint and condemn Imran Khan to the provisions of sections 167 and 173.
The district court received the referral after the ECP, in its unanimous decision in the Toshakana reference last month, ordered criminal prosecution of the PTI leader. Imran Khan could receive a three-year prison term as well as a fine if the corrupt practices were proven.
A four-member ECP bench’s decision further ruled that the PTI leader was no longer a National Assembly member and disqualified the former prime minister. Imran was found to have submitted a false affidavit and to have engaged in corrupt practices in violation of Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution, it continued.
Khan had made “false statements and incorrect declarations, therefore he had also committed the offense of corrupt practices defined under Sections 167 and 173 of the Elections Act – an offense punishable under Section 174 of the Elections Act,” according to the ECP’s ruling.
In a petition submitted to the Lahore High Court (LHC) last week, the PTI contested the legal basis for Imran’s exclusion. Due to the “importance of the case,” the PTI’s attorneys requested that the court appoint a larger bench. The chief justice received the case file from LHC Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi to assemble a larger bench.
Nasar Ahmed, an additional attorney general (AAG), questioned whether the petition could be maintained. Azhar Siddique, the petitioner’s attorney, urged the court to send the case before a larger bench in light of the case’s importance; the AAG did not disagree with this request.
The petitioner’s attorney added that it was still up for debate whether or not the ECP could invalidate any member of parliament, pointing out that neither it was a court nor did it have the authority to rule on the matter.
In addition, Attorney Siddique argued that by disqualifying Imran, the ECP had overstepped its authority because only an election tribunal had the power to do so. The ECP attorney requested 15 days to file the response.
The petitioners had asked the court to declare Section 137(4) of the Election Act, 2017 to be ultra vires the Constitution. They also argued that the concerned authorities, particularly the ECP, should not be allowed to act or pursue legal action in this case because it was not a court of law.
According to the petition, Article 63(1)(p) prohibits someone from “currently being elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) or a provincial assembly under any law currently in force.”
The petition contended that this clause did not apply to Imran Khan’s situation because “disqualification” is not mentioned in any of the sections mentioned in the ECP’s ruling. It continued, “While Article 63(1) (p) of the Constitution permitted punishment mentioned in any law then in effect.
Toshakhana trial against Imran Khan starts today
The petition added that failure to disclose information about Toshakhana gifts and sale proceeds did not result in disqualification. Only when the prosecution was started within 120 days of the filing following Articles 63(2) and (3) of the Constitution could it take place.
“The ECP has deliberately erred in law and has utterly failed to comprehend its governing law,” it alleged, adding that the electoral watchdog “has adopted an incorrect interpretation and has gone beyond its mandate and the mandate of law, thereby violating the Constitution”.
