PAKISTAN:
The Supreme Court has fixed five petitions concerning access to former prime minister and PTI founder Imran Khan for hearing on August 18.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, will hear the matters.
Earlier, this matter was being heard by a bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Last month, the bench had sought details of all meetings that Imran and his wife, Bushra Bibi, had held in prison with party leaders, family members and lawyers.
The bench has now been reconstituted as Justice Mazhar is not available at the Supreme Court’s principal seat.
Lawyers believe that, perhaps for the first time, the PTI has got a bench whose proceedings’ outcome cannot be predicted. They say all three judges have a strong reputation for integrity and impartiality.
Since his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Shahid Waheed has not been among the favourite judges of the present regime. He was not even nominated to the constitutional benches following the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Justice Afghan was a signatory to the dissenting opinion in which it was held that the trial of civilians in military courts is unconstitutional. He had also dissented from the majority opinion that endorsed the transfer of three judges, including Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). He had also granted post-arrest bail to PTI leaders, including Ejaz Chaudhry, in May 9 cases.
Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim was a signatory to the Supreme Court judgment that set aside its December 29, 2022 order endorsing the closure of Imran’s right to defend himself in the Rs10 billion defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
Interestingly, division bench comprising Justice Afghan and Justice Ibrahim will also hear Imaan Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatta cases on August 19.
PTI lawyers and lawmakers on Tuesday gathered outside the Supreme Court building to protest against the non-fixation of cases relating to access to Imran.
Subsequently, a delegation of PTI lawyers led by Salman Akram Raja met the apex court registrar. Insaf Lawyers Forum (ILF) Chief Organiser Intezar Panjutha, Malik Shafqat Awan and MNA Ali Muhammad Khan also participated in the meeting.
Talking to The Express Tribune, Panjutha said the registrar assured the delegation that five petitions concerning denial of access to Imran’s family members and personal physician would be listed for hearing next week. He said the cause list for the cases would be issued within the next two days.
The Supreme Court has been requested to allow Imran’s personal physicians, family members and legal team access to the jailed politician, besides seeking provision of his medical records to his family.
Imran’s sister, Uzma Khan, has also approached the apex court seeking Imran’s transfer to Shifa International Hospital for what her petition describes as proper treatment and continuous monitoring of his eye condition and related medical complications.
A single bench of IHC led by Justice Khadim Soomro is also hearing petitions against solitary confinement of Imran and his wife Bushra Bibi in jail.
Since the 26th Amendment and the transfer of judges to the IHC, Imran has struggled to secure relief from the superior courts.
Lawyers believe that post 26th constitutional amendment, Imran’s relief in all cases depends on his relationship with “powerful circles” rather legal arguments.
Imran has not been allowed to meet with his family members since December last year.
At present, the government is in a strong position, while Imran continues to enjoy massive support. The only loser is the justice system, which has so far failed to adhere to due process and the requirements of fairness enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution over the past two years.
Former Supreme Court judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had issued an additional note in the presidential reference concerning former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He said judges must uphold their oaths with courage in the face of oppression, as only then can the judiciary truly safeguard democracy and protect the rights of the people.
“Let the lesson of transitional justice be clearÂ… transitional justice, however, often becomes necessary because, during oppressive rule, some judges fail to uphold their constitutional duty, succumbing to the pressure of illegitimate authority.
“This failure not only enables violations of due process and fair trial rights but also erodes public trust in the judiciary,” wrote Justice Shah. He said the Bhutto case served as a classic example of a political trial, illustrating how such trials can be manipulated to advance authoritarian designs.
Likewise, present CJP Yahya Afridi in a similar case also said that the extraordinary political climate of the time and the pressures inherent in such an environment appear to have influenced the course of justice in a manner inconsistent with the ideals of judicial independence.
