PESHAWAR: A local court here on Saturday put off hearing to March 4 of a defamation suit filed against former premier Imran Khan by an ex-MPA, Fauzia Bibi, who was accused by him of selling her vote in the 2018 Senate elections.

An additional district and sessions judge, Aftab Iqbal, was requested by senior counsel Qazi Mohammad Anwar to allow them at least three weeks’ time as they were engaged in patching up the matter with the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s counsel Syed Ghufranullah Shah appeared along with four of the witnesses in the case.

However, following the request made by the defendant’s counsel, the statements of witnesses were not recorded.

The former MPA, who was elected on reserved seats for women on PTI ticket, has filed the suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs500 million for defaming her through levelling “baseless” allegations against her by Mr Khan at a press conference.

Next hearing into petition of ex-MPA fixed for March 4

The defamation suit was filed in June 2018 under the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The only defendant in the suit is PTI chief Imran Khan, who subsequently became prime minister and was then removed through a vote of no-confidence in April 2022.

The former MPA has claimed that in the Senate polls held on March 3, 2018, she had followed the party’s direction with effect to cast vote in favour of all the relevant candidates.

She stated that after the Senate polls, the defendant started uttering, spreading and resorting to publication, communication and circulation of maliciously false, baseless and unfounded oral statements and representation against the plaintiff.

After repeated court notices, a reply was submitted to the plaint in 2021 on behalf of Mr Khan, requesting to dismiss the suit as it was based on malafide and ulterior motives on part of the plaintiff.

In his reply, he stated that the press conference in question addressed by him was based on findings of a fact finding committee and his remarks were made public in good faith.

He had stated that he had not said anything on his own or personal experience but had narrated only the true information provided by the fact finding committee.

He stated that the fact finding committee disclosed to him the names of doubtful MPAs, who had not voted for the party’s candidates as a result of which the candidates had lost the Senate polls.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not challenge the action of the fact finding committee and the disciplinary committee before any competent forum, provided under the law governing the affairs of political parties as well as provided in the constitution of PTI.

On December 14, 2019, the court had rejected an application of Mr Khan, seeking dismissal of the suit stating it was not maintainable.

In April 2020, the Peshawar High Court had allowed a petition of the plaintiff and ordered that the case should be disposed of as per section 14 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, under which the suit had to be decided within 90 days.

However, the case continued to linger due to one reason or another.

Published in Dawn, February 19th, 2023

Opinion

Editorial

Kurram atrocity
Updated 22 Nov, 2024

Kurram atrocity

It would be a monumental mistake for the state to continue ignoring the violence in Kurram.
Persistent grip
22 Nov, 2024

Persistent grip

An audit of polio funds at federal and provincial levels is sorely needed, with obstacles hindering eradication efforts targeted.
Green transport
22 Nov, 2024

Green transport

THE government has taken a commendable step by announcing a New Energy Vehicle policy aiming to ensure that by 2030,...
Military option
Updated 21 Nov, 2024

Military option

While restoring peace is essential, addressing Balochistan’s socioeconomic deprivation is equally important.
HIV/AIDS disaster
21 Nov, 2024

HIV/AIDS disaster

A TORTUROUS sense of déjà vu is attached to the latest health fiasco at Multan’s Nishtar Hospital. The largest...
Dubious pardon
21 Nov, 2024

Dubious pardon

IT is disturbing how a crime as grave as custodial death has culminated in an out-of-court ‘settlement’. The...