A lawyer representing former Prime Minister Imran Khan expressed concerns on Thursday regarding the handling of the cipher case. He alleged that the foreign ministry appeared indifferent to the document’s disappearance, despite being its custodian, and accused the interior ministry of unnecessarily taking over the case.
Presenting arguments before a division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), consisting of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Barrister Salman Safdar requested the suspension of Imran Khan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s sentences in the cipher case. However, the bench declined the request and opted for a prompt decision on their appeals.
Imran Khan is accused of misusing the cipher—a confidential diplomatic communication—for political purposes and endangering national security by disclosing and misplacing it. Safdar contended that the cipher still exists in Foreign Office records and its transcribed version has been shared with eight individuals.
He stated that the Foreign Office sent a copy of the cipher to Azam Khan, the principal secretary to the then-Prime Minister, Imran Khan. Azam Khan alleged he handed over a copy to Mr. Khan, who failed to return it. Safdar argued that this might constitute negligence, not a crime, adding that Mr. Khan could not be convicted for mere negligence.
He mentioned that when the cipher went missing, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs showed no concern and did not issue any letter to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Furthermore, when the PMO informed the foreign ministry about the missing cipher, the foreign secretary replied that a copy of the confidential document could not be issued and advised the PMO staff to attempt to locate it.
Safdar also highlighted that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) issued a notice to Mr. Khan seven months after receiving the cipher, whereas the former PM could have retained it for a year.
Justice Aurangzeb noted that if Azam Khan was the sole witness regarding handing over the cipher’s copy to Mr. Khan, excluding his testimony would leave no evidence that the cipher was misplaced from the former premier’s custody.
The judge also questioned under what law the copy of the cipher could be retained for a year. Safdar responded that the prosecution had taken this stance during the initial hearings.
When the court asked how long it would take to conclude the arguments, the former prime minister’s counsel stated that he would do so by the next session.
The court scheduled the next hearing for April 16th.
