Islamabad: The Special Court overseeing the cipher case involving Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi dismissed their plea to delay proceedings. The decision, made by Special Court Judge Abul Hasanat Muhammad Zulqarnain, has intensified the already tense atmosphere surrounding the trial.
During the trial, state-appointed defense counsel engaged in a rigorous cross-examination of Azam Khan, a key witness in the cipher case. The proceedings took an unexpected turn as tensions flared between PTI leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Judge Zulqarnain during Monday’s hearing.
Qureshi raised objections to the state-appointed defense counsel, citing difficulties in attending court under the current circumstances. PTI lawyer Salman Safdar pointed out that the Islamabad High Court had previously declared the trial invalid. Despite this, the case continued in the Special Court for the third time.
Safdar questioned the capability of the state-appointed defense counsel to grasp the complexities of the case within a mere 14 hours, especially for cross-examining nine witnesses, deeming it an impossible task. He emphasized that while the Supreme Court had called for an expedited trial, it did not mandate daily hearings.
Read More: NEC for priority allocations for merged districts
Judge Zulqarnain countered these claims, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision that daily hearings are necessary when accused individuals are in jail. He added that if obstacles arise, bail could be canceled.
Safdar argued that the trial’s inherent flaws were the reason for its invalidation by the Islamabad High Court, accusing the Special Court of disregarding higher court orders. He specifically highlighted concerns over the improper appointment of State Defense Councils and the exclusion of PTI lawyers during the cross-examination of witness Azam Khan.
The prosecution responded by countering PTI lawyers’ objections, citing the Supreme Court’s directive to cancel bail in the face of obstacles. The prosecutor also questioned the absence of cross-examination by Usman Gil and Ali Bukhari during the last hearing, challenging the claim that Gil was unable to cross-examine witnesses.
