ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the relevant authorities to present Pakistani President Teheek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan to a three-person jury by 4:30 p.m. today. Pakistani Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial also criticized the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for arresting Khan at Islamabad High Court (IHC) headquarters, saying the anti-corruption agency was “outraged by the court”.
A panel of three Supreme Court justices — led by CJP Bandial, including Justices Athar Minallah and Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar — is considering a PTI petition against the arrest of the former prime minister
Earlier in the trial, former Prime Minister Hamid Khan’s lawyer told the court that Imran Khan had applied to the IHC for an extension of his bail. As the head of the PTI completed his inspection, Rangers personnel stormed the room.
“The rangers misbehaved towards Imran Khan and arrested him”
At this time, CJP Bandial inquired about the case where Imran Khan requested bail extension.
In this context, Judge Athar Minallah asked whether a complaint could be made before the biometric verification was carried out.At this point, the lawyer said that Imran Khan opted for biometric verification because no upfront fee could be charged.
“Why did the NAB take the law into its own hands? “It would be better if the NAB got permission from the IHC clerk,” Judge Minallah asked.
He said that every citizen has the right to justice and that the Court of Appeal must ensure that it is justified. The judge also expressed his regret at the current situation in the country.
Read more Chief Justice of Pakistan Bandial NAB committed contempt of court Arrest by Imran Khan
Arrested Imran Khan. Noted CJP Bandial.
“Where’s the sanctity of the courtroom with the arrest of the courtroom,”
Meanwhile, the CJP inquired about the number of people who have arrested Imran Khan.
At this point, Imran Khan’s lawyer, Salman Safdar, told the court that 80 to 100 men were there to arrest the PTI leader.
What remained of the honor of the court when 90 people took the field. NAB ignored the field,” CJP Bandial said, adding that no one would ever feel safe on the field again.
“Nobody can be arrested by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court or the Court of Auditors. The arrest of Imran Khan violated the sanctity of the justice system,” he added.
Meanwhile, Judge Minallah noted that if such arrests became the norm, no one would appear in court.
“One person who went to court is cannot be arrested. he added.
CJP Bandial also noted that the court will review the legality and compliance of the NAB order.
“The right to submit to the court cannot be sabotaged,” added CJP.
Meanwhile, Safdar told the court that Imran Khan was on a “terrorist target list” and that his protection had been withdrawn. He also informed the court that the NAB investigator was not present at the time of the arrest.
“There is no example of how the guards arrested Imran Khan,” Safdar said.
At this point, Judge Minallah stated that the Anti-Corruption Commission had been doing the same thing to different people for years.
Khan’s lawyer Safdar told the jury that after his arrest they learned that the warrants were issued on May 1st.He added that the interior minister informed the court that the PTI chief had not received the mandate.
When asked what the plaintiff wanted, Hamid Khan’s lawyer asked the Court of Appeal to order Imran Khan’s release.
“Illegal work must not be ignored,” CJP Bandial noted, access to justice is a right of every citizen.
Attorney Hamid Khan, meanwhile, argued that Imran Khan was not accompanied by any party activists or supporters on May 9.
At this point, Judge Mazhar asked if Imran Khan had responded to the NAB communications.
In response to the request, the PTI chief’s attorney said the response had been sent to the NAB.
He argued that the person could not be arrested during the investigation and that NAB had a duty to inform the accused once the investigation was complete.
When asked if Imran Khan had joined the investigation, his second attorney, Shoaib Shaheen, replied that they would send a reply.
“The NAB warrant is illegal,” he said.
Judge Mazhar noted that the case concerned compliance with the NAB warrant, not the legality of the warrant.He also asked why the head of the PTI did not appeal the order and did not participate in the investigation.
Meanwhile, Judge Minallah noted that the NAB only wanted to force others to obey the law, but “it was evident that Imran Khan was not following the advice of the NAB either.”.
hearing. PTI filed a petition with the Supreme Court the day before challenging the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision, calling the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) arrest of party leader Imran Khan “lawful.”
The application was initially referred to PTI after the registrar objected to the fee.
The law firm said the head of the PTI did not appear in the correct forum, adding that he could appeal to the court.
He also specified that the application did not bear the signatures of the PTI director.
But later Wednesday, PTI was indicted by the court clerk and admitted to trial.
Following Khan’s arrest at the IHC on Tuesday, PTI Deputy Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi called an emergency meeting of the seven-member committee to review the situation and develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure the game’s chairman’s speedy and safe release.
A senior PTI official announced the party’s plan to move the Court of Appeals.
IHC declares arrest of Imran Khan ‘lawful’ in Al-Qadir Trust
case On Tuesday, IHC declared the arrest of the PTI chairman in the Al-Qadir Trust case ‘lawful’.
IHC Chief Judge Aamer Farooq – who inquired about Rangers #039; A qualified sentence was handed down to apply to the court for Khan’s arrest earlier in the day.
The IHC also sent notices to the Islamabad Police Inspector General and the Minister of the Interior for contempt of court.
The presiding judge ordered the Supreme Court Registry to register a First Information Report (RIF) on the circumstances of the detention, which included the treatment of the lawyers present nearby and the destruction of the courthouse.
The secretary was also instructed to investigate the matter and submit a report by May 16th.
Leave a Reply