Imran Khan’s FIA summons has been postponed by LHC due to “cypher audio leaks”
Justice Asjaid Javaid Ghural has requested responses by December 19 from the federal government and other respondents.
In response to the “cypher audio leak” incident, Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday postponed the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) summons to PTI leader Imran Khan and requested responses from the federal government and other respondents by December 19.
Imran had objected to the FIA’s probe into audio leaks pertaining to the US cypher and to the notice it had given him to record his statement by December 6 (today) at the LHC.
The court was asked to order the affected quarters to cease their investigation and declare their notices “illegal and unlawful.”
If the LHC has the authority to hear this subject was the main topic of contention during the initial round of the case. It is important to note that the LHC Registrar Office has jurisdictional concerns.
Salman Safdar, the PTI leader’s attorney, responded by asserting that the LHC has the authority to hear this case and citing three cases, including the one involving model Ayyan Ali.
Justice Ghural questioned whether an investigation was made into how the audio recordings were released.
Justice Ghural also inquired as to “whether or not those persons had been investigated who were deputed there and had complete power.”
The petitioner’s attorney retorted that they were unaware of how the audio recordings got out. But an investigation should be done to find out who is in charge of audio leaks, Justice Ghural said.
The attorney informed the court that the FIA began a “irrelevant probe” based on information found online.
The forensic examination of the audio should have been done first, according to Justice Ghural, to prove its reliability.
The attorney begged the court to defer the FIA notice because he was concerned that a first information report (FIR) might not be filed against his client.
The judge asked if the FIA may give notice in the investigation into audio leaks. The federal government’s attorney countered that the FIA has the right to issue the notification, to which the counsel responded in the negative.
Imran’s attorney retorted that they were unaware of how the recording had gotten out and noted that the FIA had started its investigation based solely on information found online without performing any forensic analysis on the audio leaks to confirm their veracity.
He pleaded with the court that the investigation is based on “mala fide intention with ulterior motivations” and asserted that the federal government was utilising the FIA for vested interests. He continued, “My client is a victim of political persecution just to damage his reputation.
Justice Ghural responded by inquiring as to whether an investigation could be started without forensic analysis of the tape and whether the probe’s scope would be broadened or kept to a small group of people. Concerned, the attorney pleaded with the court to stay the FIA’s notice since there were issues about whether the FIR could be filed.
Petition
The petitioner pleaded with the court in his petition that he and his party had been politically victimised since they were removed from office in April of this year as a result of a well-orchestrated plot and that the subsequent arbitrary actions and haughtiness of the political rivals who took over the federal government quite clearly demonstrate this.
In a similar vein, the current administration made his audios available and distributed them while he was Pakistan’s Prime Minister. On September 28, 2022, the first audio, which claimed to be a recording of the petitioner’s conversation, leaked online. These conversations took place via a phone line that was intended to be secure in the prime minister’s office, but it was intercepted and recorded anyway. Additionally, it is evident from these publicly available audio clips that they have been altered in some way in order to modify their meaning and context and cast a poor light on the petitioner.
The petitioner is therefore upset and dissatisfied with the respondent’s (FIA) use of authority. The FIA launched an investigation into alleged conversations between the petitioner, his political associates, and the then-prime minister’s secretary regarding the “Cypher Message” that Washington had sent, but did so illegally, unlawfully, without jurisdiction, with bad intent, and with an ulterior motive.
In accordance with the aforementioned investigation, the respondent Mian Sabir Hussain, assistant director (Inquiry Team), Federal Investigation Agency, issued him a notice on November 30, 2022, in violation of section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for his appearance before the Inquiry Team on December 6, 2022, at 2 p.m. at the FIA headquarters.
Despite being called as a witness by the in question enquiry notice, the petitioner has no idea what offence, if any, he is being investigated for. Both the prior notification on the subject and the contested inquiry notice are pitifully silent about it.
According to the law of the land, the person must be told of the fact, point, allegation, offence, name of the accused, and specified issue, if any, regarding the matters in the notice before being summoned as a witness so that they can provide such information. The FIA issued the contested enquiry notice without adhering to any of the aforementioned requirements, though.
The investigation that has been opened is outside of the FIA’s purview because there is no evidence of wrongdoing, much less “illegality,” especially against the petitioner. It was started with malicious intent, in bad faith, and for personal gain in order to harm the petitioner and aid or profit the petitioner’s political adversaries.
He asked the court to rule that the contested inquiry lacks jurisdiction and that it should be immediately dismissed, along with the contested inquiry notice. As a result, because no wrongdoing of any kind has been alleged against the petitioner, quash the contested investigation and earlier notice in the interest of justice.
