A district and sessions court in Islamabad on Wednesday rejected PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s witnesses in the Toshakhana case, saying that the ex-premier had failed to prove their “relevance” in the criminal proceedings against him.

Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Hum­­ayun Dilawar took up a complaint against Imran, filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), for concealing details of Toshakana gifts.

At the previous hearing, the PTI chief had submitted his response to 35 questions raised by the court.

During the hearing today, ADSJ Dilawar said the PTI lawyer had submitted a list of defence witnesses but failed to present them in court.

The judge noted that a list of four witnesses was given and the court was asked to set a date for the recording of their statements. However, the suspect didn’t record the statements of private witnesses nor did he submit the list of government witnesses, he added.

ADSJ Dilawar pointed out that all the witnesses chosen by Imran were tax consultants, while the case against the PTI chief was pertaining to hiding assets and submitting a fake affidavit. “The court is not looking at entries regarding wealth statements and income tax,” he added.

Hence, the court ruled that the suspect had failed to prove the relevance of the witnesses and could, therefore, not be granted permission to present them in court.

It subsequently summoned both respondents tomorrow for final arguments at 11am, adding that a verdict would be reserved if they refused to appear in court.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing today, Imran’s counsel Gohar Khan requested that the court grant his client exemption from attending today’s hearing.

“Where are your witnesses?” ADSJ Dilawar inquired. In his response, the PTI lawyer sought time till tomorrow (Thursday) to present the witnesses.

However, ECP counsel Amjad Pervaiz objected to the request, saying that the court had categorically instructed the PTI to present their witnesses in court today.

“No application has been submitted yet to call any government witnesses … tell us how these private witnesses are relevant to the case? This case is related to the assets filed by the suspect,” he argued, pointing out that the first three names in the list of witnesses provided by Imran were tax consultants.

Amjad then proceeded to read Imran’s reply submitted in the case a day earlier out loud in the courtroom. “The suspect has himself said in the statement that he does not rely on the tax returns,” he said.

The ECP lawyer further alleged that the time sought to present witnesses was mere “delaying tactics”.

Here, the judge directed the lawyers to apprise the court of the witnesses.

In his response, PTI’s Gohar Khan decried that his client was told to present witnesses in less than 24 hours and once again asked the court to give them more time.

He said the witnesses were not in Islamabad and requested a “short adjournment” so that they could be presented in court.

The lawyer also contended that it was not for the prosecution to question the selection of witnesses by the defence and the relevance of the witnesses was to be decided by the defence.

He argued that the witnesses mentioned in the list were relevant.

“The evidence of these witnesses is necessary material and very much desirable to the defence against the charge framed by this court.”

“If the witnesses are not linked to the case, the court may stop them from recording their statement,” he said, assuring that all the witnesses would come to the court and testify whether the documents submitted by Imran were correct or not.

“We expect justice from you … we should be given a level-playing field,” Barrister Gohar added.

The court, in a written order issued later, observed that it was not looking into matters pertaining to tax returns.

It further stated that the defence had failed to establish the relevancy of the testimony of witnesses mentioned in the listed submitted to the court and therefore, it could not be allowed to present them in court.

The court adjourned the hearing until 11am on Thursday (tomorrow), with directions to present final arguments at the next session.

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.