The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday adjourned the appeal filed by former premier Imran Khan — currently incarcerated in Attock Jail — against his conviction and sentence in the Toshakhana case till Thursday.

Today, the IHC also took up the plea seeking “better class/A-Class” jail facilities for Imran while also urging that his detention in Attock Jail be declared “illegal” and for the ex-premier to be shifted to Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi.

On August 5, a trial court in Islamabad found the PTI chief guilty of “corrupt practices” in a case pertaining to concealing details of state gifts and sentenced him to three years in prison. The verdict also means that he stood disqualified from contesting general elections for five years.

A day ago, a report by Additional District and Sessions Judge Shafqut Ullah Khan stated that the “grave concern” regarding a lack of privacy around Imran’s prison cell’s toilet facilities due to a CCTV camera’s presence was “genuine” and point towards a violation of prison rules.

Today, IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri presided over the hearing.

Khawaja Haris, Barrister Gohar, Babar Awan, Latif Khosa and Sher Afzal Marwat were among Imran’s counsels who appeared in the court while Advocate Amjad Pervaiz appeared as the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP’s) lawyer.

During the hearing, ECP lawyer Pervaiz requested more time for preparation and that the hearing be adjourned till Monday (August 28).

However, Khosa opposed the request, following which the IHC adjourned the hearing till Thursday (August 24).

The courtroom was reported to be full of people, leading to difficulties for the lawyers and media present there.

Prior to the hearing, Advocate Naeem Haider Panjutha, a member of Imran’s legal team, said, “[Imran] Khan sahib would not be presented in the court as far as today is concerned.”

He further said that other cases in an Islamabad anti-terrorism court were adjourned.

Last night, the Islamabad police had also stated that there was “no truth” in various reports that said Imran will appear in court today.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will tomorrow (Wednesday) hear Imran’s plea challenging the August 3 IHC order of remanding the Toshakhana case to Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar, who had later declared the former premier to be guilty of “corrupt practices”.

PTI calls for chief justice’s recusal

Responding to the development, PTI Information Secretary Raoof Hasan called for the chief justice to recuse himself from the case.

“Those who violate the justice system in every conceivable way are accorded unwarranted relief and those who are the victims of wanton state oppression and suppression are denied it,” he said in a post on social media platform X.

Last month, the PTI chief himself had approached the IHC seeking Justice Farooq’s recusal from the bench hearing petitions against the Toshakhana reference in the interest of a “fair and impartial” trial.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, Marwat informed the court that Imran’s legal team is still not being allowed to meet him, at which Justice Farooq remarked, “I cannot understand why have you been barred from meeting him.”

“I had even said that two to three lawyers may go to meet him and that there should not be a crowd there,” he added.

Awan then lamented that even after the court’s order, the jail authorities were not allowing Imran’s lawyers to meet him. “Undoubtedly, even if one by one or in pairs, but permission to meet [Imran] may be given,” he urged the court.

Here, the court observed that a jail official had previously said that they would allow a meeting and that on the next, the reason for not allowing was that lawyers had gone after the meeting timings had ended.

Here, Marwat informed the court, “Just a while ago, a raid was conducted at my home.”

Justice Farooq then recalled that the case record was sought after issuing a notice on the appeal and asked if the record was available with the court.

To this, the ECP lawyer told the court that he had not been able to secure the verified case record yet. “It has been petitioned to suspend the sentence based on the case merits,” he said.

Pervaiz then urged the court to grant him “appropriate time” to prepare for the case.

At this point during the hearing, Khosa lamented, “We were not even given the right to defend or were heard. There was great haste at that time.”

He then opposed giving the ECP lawyer further time and urged the court to decide today on the plea seeking Imran’s release on bail.

Khosa recalled that the court had sought a response from the ECP today and asserted that his client was “not asking for any leniency but only his basic right”.

Urging the court to approve the plea seeking suspension of Imran’s sentence, the lawyer lamented that Imran was in jail currently and was “not being provided with any facilities”.

“Delay tactics are being used on purpose in this case. The sessions judge announced the verdict in haste without hearing the case on merit,” Khosa argued.

He further argued that the session court had violated the orders of the Supreme Court and the IHC as a “criminal case was proceeded with without a reference [filed]”.

“The election commission’s secretary is not the election commission [itself],” Khosa said while recalling a previous Supreme Court judgement. He said that the apex court had granted bail to suspects in such cases where they were “heard in a haste during holidays”.

The PTI lawyer then again urged the IHC to release Imran on bail, stating that he believed in the “independence and strength of the judiciary”.

Here, the ECP lawyer pointed out that it was the first time their party had requested more time.

Justice Farooq then replied, “The case has been fixed after 12-15 days [so] you should have come prepared as well. Then, we will not accept either of the respondents’ requests and are fixing the hearing for Thursday.

“We are neither accepting Khosa’s request nor yours (the ECP’s),” Justice Farooq said in response to the ECP lawyer’s request to adjourn the hearing till Monday.

Subsequently, the court then directed Pervaiz to submit a response within two days and adjourned the hearing till Thursday (August 24).