• Charges to be framed on Sept 22
• Court notes PTI chief’s replies appear to be ‘justifying’ contempt, show ‘no remorse or regret’
• AGP says Imran passed similar comments against judge in later speeches

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Imran Khan will be formally indicted on a contempt of court charge later this month after the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday rejected his explanation and “regrets” for comments he made about a sessions court judge.

The verdict was issued by a five-member bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar.

The court order said charges against the former prime minister would be framed on Sept 22 at 2:30pm. “The learned counsel for the respondent [Mr Khan] took us through the supplementary response filed by the respondent and submitted that it was an explanation of the speech in relation to which contempt proceedings have been initiated,” it said.

The court said it considered the response filed by Imran and did not find it satisfactory. “We are not convinced that the respondent has purged himself of the wrongdoing alleged against him in relation to which the show-cause notice was issued,” the court said. The ruling is the latest twist in months of political wrangling that started even before Mr Khan was ousted in April by a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly.

The IHC initiated contempt proceedings against Imran Khan over his diatribe at a last month rally in Islamabad against Additional District and Sessions Judge Zeba Chaudhry, who had approved PTI leader Shahbaz Gill’s physical remand in a sedition case.

On Wednesday, the former premier submitted a second reply to the court after the first was termed “unsatisfactory”.

In such a contempt case, the accused are required to tender an unconditional apology without any justification, clearly stating that they leave themselves at the mercy of the court, legal analysts say, as long as the accused do not want to contest the case.

Former prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and several members of the parliament have in the past been convicted of contempt of court and been disqualified from contesting elections for five years. Mr Khan’s aides have described his legal issues as an attempt to knock him out technically “after seeing his growing popularity” since his ouster.

‘No remorse’

The PTI chief appeared before the IHC amid extraordinarily tight security, while the police forcibly shut down nearby shops and turned the surrounding streets into a no-go area.

Commenting on the environment, the PTI chief quipped as if Kulbhushan Jadhav — an Indian spy sentenced to death by Pakistan on subversion charges — was coming to court.

Clad in grey shalwar kameez and a dark grey waistcoat, Mr Khan kept reciting the rosary during the about three-hour-long hearing on Thursday.

During the hearing, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah observed that Mr Khan’s replies appeared to be “justifying” contempt of the judiciary and showed “no remorse or regret”.

Mr Khan’s counsel, Hamid Khan, said there was a difference between giving a justification and a clarification. “I am giving a clarification here.”

“Would you have submitted the same reply if these words were used for a Supreme Court or a high court judge?” Justice Minallah asked.

The counsel tried to distinguish Imran Khan’s case from those of PML-N leaders Danial Aziz and Tallal Chaudhry, who were convicted and disqualified from contesting 2018 general elections.

However, Justice Minallah observed that contempt in the case at hand was apparently graver than the previous two cases, and reminded the counsel that, based on the first impression, Mr Khan had committed civil, judicial and criminal contempt.

Justice Sattar pointed out that the show-cause notice clearly accused Mr Khan of judicial and criminal contempt, but the PTI chairman did not respond to the allegation of criminal contempt in his reply.

Hamid Khan argued that his client in the reply had expressed great reverence for the judiciary and remorse for his words.

In his reply, Mr Khan expressed deep regret over his utterances against Ms Chaudhry and stated that he had “a profound regard and respect for this honourable court and its subordinate courts and judges”.

During the hearing, Islamabad High Court Bar Association President Shuaib Shaheen argued that Imran Khan was disturbed over the reports of torture on Shahbaz Gill, adding Adiala Jail’s superintendent earlier admitted during a hearing that Mr Gill had been subjected to torture.

Justice Jahangiri inquired from the counsel whether they had informed Mr Khan that six medical boards comprising eminent doctors had been constituted to probe torture allegations but not a single report confirmed them.

Justice Minallah pointed out that order sheets of court proceedings specifically mentioned the presence of PTI lawyers during the hearing of Mr Gill’s case, which was sufficient to believe that Mr Khan knew that the matter was sub judice.

Munir A. Malik and Makhdoom Ali Khan — who attended the hearing as amici curiae (friends of the court), were of the view that Mr Khan’s reply was sufficient to drop contempt proceedings.

However, a third amicus curiae, Akhtar Hussain of the Pakistan Bar Council, opined that the court might consider discharging the show-cause notice only if Mr Khan gave an unconditional apology.

The bench reminded them that a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court in 1998 laid down certain principles for discharging contempt of court charges.

‘Judges have to decide’

In his arguments during the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf said he had the transcript and video recording of Imran Khan’s speech.

“Even in his speeches later too, Imran had passed the same comments against the female judge,” he stated. “He thinks that if the Supreme Court forgave him once, it will do the same again and again.”

Mr Ausaf also pointed out that the PTI chief did not submit his response with an affidavit.

As the bench took a short break after arguments from all sides, Mr Khan started interacting with journalists and lawyers present inside the courtroom, though his lawyers Hamid Khan and Barrister Salman Safdar couldn’t hide their dismay.

When asked about his response to the decision after the court announced the date of his indictment, he said, “Now, they (the judges) have to decide.”

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2022