ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) request to allow five witnesses to testify against former Prime Minister Imran Khan in the Toshakhana case has been rejected by Additional District and Sessions Judge Islamabad, Humayun Dilawar. The court accepted objections raised by Imran’s lawyer. It exempted him from attending the hearing on Monday and adjourning further proceedings till Tuesday.
Imran Khan’s counsel, Advocate Khawaja Haris’ unavailability initially caused a delay in the hearing. He was engaging at the Islamabad High Court. Saad Hasan, the ECP lawyer, appeared in court, and the judge warned that he would announce a verdict if the arguments for allowing more witnesses were not presented.
The ECP lawyer informed the court that Advocate Amjad Pervaiz, assigned to present arguments on behalf of the ECP, was in Lahore due to prior commitments. The court insisted that trial proceedings should begin, as today was the designated date.
Imran’s lawyer mentioned the pending matter before the Islamabad High Court, challenging the trial court’s decision on the Toshakhana reference. The ECP urged the court to hear their arguments first and requested an adjournment of the hearing until Wednesday.
The judge, however, declined further adjournments, stating that he would not entertain any more requests. The ECP lawyer requested half an hour to confirm with Advocate Pervaiz if he could present the arguments. The judge reiterated that Pervaiz had committed to presenting the arguments.
The ECP lawyer informed about a bank account under the name of Imran and his wife in Bank Al-Falah. He clarified that he was not submitting any new documents and requested the court to accept the ECP’s plea.
He highlighted that Imran had admitted to transferring Toshakhana money into his bank account. Imran’s lawyer objected to the prosecutor’s arguments in a private complaint. While the ECP lawyer defended the legality of the prosecutor’s role. The ECP lawyer expressed disappointment that a public prosecutor was presenting arguments for the ECP and referred to an amendment in the law.
Imran’s lawyer questioned the involvement of a public prosecutor in a private complaint, raising concerns about the case’s nature. The judge intervened, focusing on whether the ECP’s plea regarding witnesses was maintainable. Imran’s lawyer emphasized that the ECP must include the witnesses’ names in the complaint and requested an adjournment until Wednesday.
The judge mentioned that he would consider the verdict from the Islamabad High Court when issued. Imran’s lawyer’s request exempted him from the court appearance. The court dismissed the ECP’s plea to record testimonies of additional witnesses, summoning them for the following day.
