The Islamabad High Court has appointed court clerk Sakina Bangash to investigate the refusal of a meeting between former Prime Minister Imran Khan and lawyer Mashal Yousafzai.
Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan heard a contempt of court petition filed by Mashal Yousafzai against jail authorities for not allowing her access to Imran Khan. However, jail authorities told the court that when Mashal Yousafzai’s name was mentioned, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, who is in jail, did not consent to the meeting.
The judge directed Adiala Jail authorities to facilitate the visit of the court clerk to ascertain the facts.
Mashal Yousafzai appeared in court along with her lawyer Shoaib Shaheen and argued that several petitions have been filed on the matter, but they were transferred to another court.
The public prosecutor presented a handwritten list of lawyers allegedly provided by PTI founder Imran Khan, which showed that he had refused to meet some of them, but the court questioned the veracity of this claim, saying that the jail authorities had already assured the court that a meeting would be held.
Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan expressed dissatisfaction with the behavior of the jail authorities, saying that despite the court’s clear instructions, the petitioner was not given access.
The court ordered Imran Khan to appear in person via video link at 2 pm or 3 pm, warning that failure to do so would result in immediate action by the Islamabad Police Chief.
The court also dismissed concerns about Mashal Yousafzai being a legal representative and suggested that PTI founder Imran Khan give a written statement confirming or denying his status as a lawyer.
Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan said that repeated non-compliance by the jail authorities amounted to contempt of court.
When the hearing resumed, Jail Superintendent Abdul Ghafoor Anjum appeared in the court and was questioned about the delay in arranging the meetings, to which Abdul Ghafoor Anjum said that he was out of town, and Imran Khan had refused to meet Mashal Yousafzai. However, the learned judge highlighted the inconsistencies in the authorities’ replies and reiterated the court’s commitment to ensuring justice.
Later, Advocate General Islamabad Ayaz Shaukat appeared in the court and informed that Imran Khan could not be produced through video link due to security concerns.
The Chief Justice directed the jail authorities and IG Islamabad to submit affidavits regarding the implementation of the court orders.
Sakina Bangash is to go to Adiala Jail, she will meet the PTI founder and confirm whether Mashal Yousafzai is his legal representative or not, she was also directed to investigate whether the PTI founder’s meetings with his colleagues are being arranged as per the legal provisions?
List of lawyers
During the hearing, a list of 6 lawyers signed by Imran Khan was presented in the court, raising further questions as to whether the power of attorney was signed legally?
The jail superintendent told the court that a meeting between Imran Khan, his wife Bushra Bibi and their legal team is scheduled for Tuesday.
Mashal Yousafzai expressed concern over the transparency of the process and asked whether justice will be served? In response, the learned judge assured and said that the court is here to ensure justice, which is why we are taking this step to verify the facts and uphold the rule of law.
The court adjourned the hearing of the case till March 21 and directed the clerk of the court to complete the inquiry and submit his report at the next hearing.
Trial hearing in jail
On the other hand, the Lahore High Court granted more time to the Election Commission to file its response on the application for suspension of sentence of PTI founder Chairman Imran Khan in the contempt of court case.
A 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice Alia Neelam heard the application. When the Election Commission’s lawyer explained the reason for the delay in submitting the response, he said that some documents need to be included in the case record, and he asked for more time to submit the response.
The court expressed its displeasure over the Election Commission’s failure to submit a response, accepted the application and adjourned the hearing.
Other members of the bench included Justice Shahram Sarwar Chaudhry and Justice Asjad Javed Ghoral.
The petition filed by Imran Khan had argued that the Election Commission had issued an order for the trial in Adiala Jail on November 30, 2023. The petition stated that the Election Commission failed to understand that a jail trial would violate several fundamental rights of the petitioner. The commission wrongly stated that it could order a secret and jail trial.
The petition argued that a jail trial is a violation of Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process of law.
The petitioner requested the court to declare the Election Commission’s decision null and void and order an open and public trial with full access to his legal team, the media and the public.
