An Islamabad trial court on Monday dismissed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) plea to allow five witnesses to testify against PTI Chairman Imran Khan in a criminal complaint over concealing details of Toshakana gifts.

Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Hum­­ayun Dilawar took up the case and warned the ECP counsel that he would decide today on the matter of allowing more witness testimonies regardless of whether arguments from either side were made or not.

The court dismissed the commission’s plea after accepting the objections raised by Imran’s lawyer on the ECP counsel’s arguments.

It also granted Imran exemption from attending today’s hearing and adjourned it till tomorrow (July 18).

The hearing

Initially, the hearing had been adjourned till 12:30pm as Imran’s legal team had informed the court that the former premier’s counsel, Advocate Khawaja Haris, was busy at the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

When the hearing resumed after Haris’ arrival, ECP counsel Advocate Saad Hasan appeared in the court, as well as Imran’s legal team comprising Mirza Asim, Khalid Yousuf and Sardar Masroof.

Imran’s lawyer then requested the court to adjourn the hearing, at which the ADSJ warned that he would announce the verdict today if the lawyer would not present his arguments on allowing five more witnesses to testify against Imran.

The ECP lawyer then informed the court that Advocate Amjad Pervaiz, who was supposed to present the arguments on behalf of the ECP, was in Lahore due to prior commitments.

Hasan proceeded to request the court to record the testimonies of the two witnesses who were present at the hearing.

To this, ADSJ Dilawar said, “The hearing of the trial has to begin today. Amjad Pervaiz was given today’s date for initiating the trial proceedings.”

Imran’s lawyer also informed the court that the matter was also pending before the IHC, where Imran has filed a plea challenging the trial court’s decision of declaring the Toshakhana reference against him maintainable.

Noting that the trial proceedings were initiated by the ECP, he requested the court to hear the commission’s arguments first and that the hearing be adjourned till Wednesday (July 19).

“We do not know what the Islamabad High Court will decide,” Advocate Haris said, adding that IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had been unwell for the past week.

Addressing the ECP lawyer, ADSJ Dilawar remarked that it was the third time that a request to adjourn the hearing was made.

“Whether anyone presents their argument or not, I will announce the verdict without hearing them,” he warned the lawyers.

The judge recalled that he had adjourned the hearing twice already at the request of the ECP and stated that no such request would be entertained anymore.

Advocate Hasan then sought half-an-hour to confirm with Advocate Pervaiz if he could present the arguments today.

Here, the judge reiterated that Pervaiz had “made a commitment” to the court that he would present his arguments today.

Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, one of Imran’s lawyers, then put forward the idea of both parties mutually deciding on a day to present the arguments, which ADSJ Dilawar dismissed.

“The hearing would not be adjourned. It will be held today,” the judge observed.

Advocate Hasan then informed the court that the ECP’s legal team would inform the court about the situation by 2pm, to which the judge responded that he would announce a verdict if arguments were not made.

When the hearing resumed once again, ECP lawyer Advocate Hasan began presenting his arguments.

He informed the court that there was a bank account under the name of Imran and his wife, Bushra Bibi, in Bank Al Falah.

Hasan further clarified that the documents that the ECP submitted with its plea were already with the court and no new documents were being submitted.

He said former secretary (admin) Arshad Mehmood and former deputy secretary (coordination) Faisal Tehseen were among the witnesses.

He asserted that there was no “incorrect legal aspect” in seeking the inclusion of more witnesses and its purpose was to “satisfy” the court further.

Here, the prosecutor also requested the court to accept the ECP’s plea, saying that Imran had admitted to transferring Toshakhana money into his bank account.

At this, Advocate Haris raised an objection to the prosecutor’s arguments in a “private complaint”, to which the ECP’s Advocate Hasan replied that the prosecutor was legally allowed to present their arguments in any court.

He asserted that it was not written anywhere that the prosecutor could not make arguments in a “private complaint”, adding that they could not appear in favour of any respondent.

Advocate Haris then raised the question of how a private petitioner could take the help of a public prosecutor and if the provincial government had appointed a prosecutor to the ECP.

“Has the Toshakhana case become a state complaint from a private complaint?” he asked. Hasan expressed his disappointment that “a public prosecutor was presenting arguments for the ECP”.

He mentioned an amendment to the law, according to which, he said, the prosecutor could only present arguments in cases where the petitioner was the police.

When Advocate Haris asked the court to imagine a scenario where the ECP appointed Advocate Pervaiz as their counsel after appointing Hasan, the judge asked if he also objected to the power of attorney given to Pervaiz.

At this, the PTI lawyer replied sarcastically, “I do not even know what is happening in the Toshakhana case.” Raising an objection to the ECP lawyers, he said, “Such things should have been [mentioned] in the notices [sent to me].

When Haris contended that only one counsel is supposed to present the arguments in court, ADSJ Dilawar replied, “Barrister Gohar Ali Khan [also] presented arguments from your side.”

“Kindly do not misrepresent the facts. We do not misrepresent matters. Gohar Ali Khan does not present arguments,” Haris argued back.

At that, ADSJ Dilawar responded, “Do you mean the court is misrepresenting facts?

“Set everything aside. Is the [ECP] plea on witnesses maintainable or not? Present your arguments.”

At this, the lawyer asserted that the ECP has to include the witnesses’ names in the copy of the complaint filed, noting that only the names of two witnesses had been included in it.

Advocate Haris further said that the case was in its initial stages at the moment whereas witness testimonies have to be recorded before the suspect is indicted.

Remarking that the petitioner “forgot” to include the name of five witnesses, the lawyer requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Wednesday.

He mentioned that the matter was pending before the IHC, to which ADSJ Dilawar replied that the verdict from there would be considered accordingly when it is issued.

“I guarantee that PTI chairman will come to the court [that day],” Haris assured.

Subsequently, the judge directed Imran’s counsels to submit a plea seeking Imran’s exemption from the hearing today. Upon the plea being filed, the court granted Imran exemption from appearing today.

The court also dismissed the ECP’s plea to record testimonies of further witnesses, accepting Haris’ objections and observing that the prosecutor could not present arguments in the case.

It summoned the two witnesses in the case tomorrow to record their testimonies.

Imran told to resolve objections raised by registrar office

On July 8, an Islamabad court had ruled that the case filed by the ECP against Imran was maintainable, following which the PTI chief had challenged it in the IHC.

On July 12, ADSJ Hum­­ayun Dilawar had expressed displeasure at Imran’s frequent absences in the Toshakhana case hearings, noting that the accused had only appeared before the court once during the seven-month-long trial.

Earlier today, hearing Imran’s plea against the verdict declaring his case maintainable, the IHC had ordered the PTI chief to resolve the objections raised by the registrar’s office on his plea.

Toshakhana case

The case, filed by ruling party lawmakers, is based on a criminal complaint filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

The case alleges that Imran had “deliberately concealed” details of the gifts he retained from the Toshaskhana — a repository where presents handed to government officials from foreign officials are kept — during his time as the prime minister and proceeds from their reported sales.

Imran has faced a number of legal issues over his retention of gifts. The issue also led to his disqualification by the ECP.

On Oct 21, 2022, the ECP concluded that the former premier had indeed made “false statements and incorrect declarations” regarding the gifts.

The Toshakhana is a department under the Cabinet Division that stores gifts given to rulers and government officials by heads of other governments and foreign dignitaries. According to Toshakhana rules, gifts/presents and other such materials received by persons to whom these rules apply shall be reported to the Cabinet Division.

The watchdog’s order had said Imran stood disqualified under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution.

Subsequently, the ECP had approached the Islamabad sessions court with a copy of the complaint, seeking proceedings against Imran under criminal law for allegedly misleading officials about the gifts he received from foreign dignitaries during his tenure as the prime minister.