Friday May 12, 2023
The next hearing in Toshakhan's case has been set for June 8.
"A complaint filed without a competent authority cannot be heard," says Khan's lawyer.
He adds that the complaint by the ECP was filed after the prescribed time.
ISLAMABAD: Two days after the indictment of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) president Imran Khan in the Toshakhan case, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday issued an order to stay the criminal proceedings in the matter.
The stay order will remain in place until the next hearing on the case on June 8.
On May 10, Additional Sessions Judge Humayun Dilawar indicted the PTI chief, rejecting the objections raised by Khan's lawyers.
IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq today heard Khan's petition against the order barring the lower court from further proceedings.
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has filed a criminal complaint for non-disclosure of information relating to donations received by the former prime minister during his tenure in office.
During the IHC hearing, PTI chief's lawyer Khawaja Haris claimed that the complaint against his client was filed by the District Election Commissioner and not the competent authority. He added that the ECP has not submitted a letter to appoint someone as the competent authority.
"The Electoral Commission only asked its office to file a complaint. A complaint filed without a competent authority cannot be heard," the lawyer said, relying on the documents provided by the prosecution for the record.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice noted that there were other objections of a similar nature and petitions against the interim injunction.
"Should this be heard as a main petition?" asked CJ Farooq.
However, Khan's lawyer said there was an objection to the matter as it was to be heard by a judge first.
He added that the complaint was filed after the prescribed time.
Impeachment of Imran Khan
The order issued by the court in Toshakhan's case said that charges were framed against the accused and added that Imran Khan did not answer the court's questions during the hearing.
The defendant also refused to sign the indictment, she said.
The court added that it is issuing notices to prosecution witnesses on May 13 to record their statements. It said Imran's lawyer objected to the judge and asked for the case to be transferred to another court.
The lawyer said they wanted to challenge the decision of May 5 and this court could not hear the matter until the judgment on the appeal. The resolution further stated that the objection to the change of court seat was also raised by the defense only the day before the hearing.
They said the relocation of the seat of the court was a hindrance in the path of justice. At the same time, he also stated that the accused did not challenge the decision of May 5, nor was any stay issued against him.
